Slashdot Mirror


Are Altcoins Undermining Bitcoin's Credibility?

An anonymous reader writes The editor of a Bitcoin advocacy site believes the proliferation of altcoins (cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin) is harming Bitcoin's long-term potential as an alternative to traditional currencies. Posting at BadBitcoin.org, a site that seeks to expose online scams that target Bitcoin users, the pseudonymous ViK compares altcoins, including the Internet meme inspired Dogecoin, to a pump-and-dump scheme where developers create their own version of the Bitcoin wallet and blockchain and then "pre-mine" or generate a significant number of cryptocurrency units before the altcoin's official release. Later, when their value has risen, the pre-mined altcoins are exchanged for Bitcoin or in some cases converted directly to cash. While critics of cryptocurrencies in general might find ViK's comments about the altcoin "tulip" mania ironic, the self-confessed Bitcoin fan is nevertheless calling for an altcoin boycott: "The easiest way to stop them is to not participate. We all know that they only have one purpose, and that is to make Bitcoin for the so called developers."

267 comments

  1. Self Serving Story? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    I'm not really a fan of any "altcurrency", but this guy just comes of sounding whiney and self-serving.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Self Serving Story? by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just don't agree with him. Bitcoins have some serious issues. If someone develops a digital currency that addresses those issues and makes them more practical for every day use I support it. If I had to wait for 10 minutes to get my starbucks coffee paid for I'd probably decide to just pay cash. I also wonder how quickly the blockchain would grow if bitcoin became more mainstream. Anonymity is also an issue. I think competition between digital currencies will only make them more practical and robust. That can only be a good thing for digital currencies in the long run. If progress is not made digital currencies will never replace conventional ones.

    2. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I bet he dumped a lot of money into bitcoin with hopes of becoming rich quickly. Since this has not happened, now he's blaming altcoins with the hope that a discontinued use of altcoins will get him rich quickly.

      tl;dr The author is a gullible moron.

    3. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      funny how quickly the free-market entrepreneurs become control freaks

    4. Re:Self Serving Story? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      Well, you COULD create an altcoin where instead of 10 minutes to the new block, you have it down to 10 seconds. But then submitted stale shares are substantial, no one wants to mine, and the network doesn't have the computational support it needs. Every altcoin is based on bitcoin, with parameters/hash method just changed. All of it have advantages and drawbacks depending on how far from one side to the other you tweak those values. Overcoming these will need a totally new idea

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:Self Serving Story? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If someone develops a digital currency that addresses those issues and makes them more practical for every day use I support it.

      Exactly. The Bitcoin high priests have already chased off the Zerocoin folks, so their future is far from guaranteed. secp256k1 also looks like it wasn't the best choice.

      The blockchain idea is a good one, and will probably outlast bitcoin itself. But middlemen are also needed for any of these systems to handle transactions and arbitrage efficiently.

      The OP isn't wrong, though - the trendy altcoins are all doomed too.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must have missed the part where it said

      editor of a Bitcoin advocacy site

      This "article" is just another stupid "I like this thing and hate its competitors so you should hate its competitors too" rant.

    7. Re:Self Serving Story? by Beck_Neard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Adding to this, a number of existing altcoins do, in fact, attempt to address bitcoin's weaknesses. Litecoin attempts to resist customized hardware mining and also make the blockchain update faster. Primecoin solves a somewhat useful mathematical problem instead of completely wasting computer cycles like Bitcoin does. There are other examples.

      Anyway, it only seems natural that as time goes on, better and better cryptocurrencies will be incrementally developed. To ask everyone to use ONLY what's the first iteration of this tech would be silly.

      Of course, there are "me-too!" cryptocurrencies as well, typically with only minor 'improvements' and designed to make the creators rich. I'm all for educating people about how they could be taken advantage of. But boycotting? Come on.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    8. Re: Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People seem to think the story is already told and Bitcoin has some kind of manifest destiny. Digital currencies haven't even touched 99% of the world's population, maybe more. We have so far to go right now, it's foolish to write anything off, simply because it's not Bitcoin.

    9. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The market must be free! (from anything that stands between me and exploiting others more efficiently)

    10. Re:Self Serving Story? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He does have a point though, and I don't understand why people haven't seen it before.

      If you create a currency that is backed by nothing but knowing a very large number, then you can back a infinitely large number of currencies by an infinitely large number of different large numbers (or even the same large numbers). That means that there are inherently infinitely many alt coins out there, and these things are inherently worthless.

      It's not really that alt coins destroy bitcoin's credibility, it's that bitcoin itself has no credibility in the first place, and neither do these alt coins.

    11. Re:Self Serving Story? by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One ponzi currency claiming the other ponzi currencies are bad for exactly the same reason the first currency is bad is really rather silly. If you want to play in the ponzi currency field, then go ahead but be warned it is legally and criminally dangerous and at least you are accurate in they "are all doomed".

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Self Serving Story? by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They haven't seen it because supporters of bitcoin are blinded by ideology. They can't see that their rejection of "fiat currency" should cause them to reject bit coin as well. Ironically it's because they have faith in bitcoin itself. :)

    13. Re:Self Serving Story? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      I just don't agree with him. Bitcoins have some serious issues.

      Indeed, I'd rate all the thefts of bitcoins to be killing it's credibility more than anything else. If it's seen as substantially less safe than traditional investments...

      I might participate in the bitcoin market, but it'd be strictly transitional - buy bitcoins, use them to pay. I'd actually 'own' them for as short of a period as possible.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Self Serving Story? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      No the value of any currency is derived by peoples willingness to accept it for trade of work, service, or trade, that in turn is based on other peoples willingness to use it, if no one sees added value of your alt coin then they won't mine any or accept it for trade. So while I can make a billion crypto currencies no one will accept them because they can't trade them to anyone besides me. The network effect is Bitcoins biggest advantage over it competitors. So the only real competitors to Bitcoin are ones that can gain followers through other means like Litecoin that which has a algorithm that makes it hard for custom ascis and fpgas to beat off the shelf PC's, Namecoin is a distributed censorship resistant DNS service Filecoin is a distribute file store using proof of retrievabllity, etc while altclones are ignored.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    15. Re:Self Serving Story? by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      "It's not really that alt coins destroy bitcoin's credibility, it's that bitcoin itself has no credibility in the first place"

      So 'real' currencies have intrinsic value and credibility? In the modern topsy-turvy world of economics, all debt is magically transmuted into credit, and duff debt is magically turned into 'sub primes'. It's all a financial sausage factory.

    16. Re: Self Serving Story? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      "Real" currencies have the value of national and transnational economies behind them. What does bitcoin have backing it up?

    17. Re:Self Serving Story? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised Bitcoin doesn't adopt some or more of the ideas from the altcoins.

      Are they to busy cleaning up their code ? Are they to busy doing small changes ? Are they to careful not to make big changes ?

      Are they watching to see if what other altcoins have done really works as they grow instead of what it currently looks like to work.

      For example if you want to change the proof-of-work you don't let people invest years into ASICs. Then again, changing the proof-of-work doesn't seem like a popular idea with at least 1 or more of the Bitcoin developers.

      The longer they wait, the harder it is going to be to make certain changes, right ? Or maybe they think they need a good update process first ?

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    18. Re: Self Serving Story? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      national and transnational economies ?

      Really ? you are kidding right ? It's clearly not backed by gold anymore. So what's it backed by ?

      There is only one thing: the amount of money people have invested in a currency.

      They have 2 levers. Change the Interest rate or print more money. Both influence the economy, always in a way which has pros and cons.

      The rest of the time, they can only do the same thing everyone else does: create dept.

      But only up to a point.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    19. Re: Self Serving Story? by nicolastheadept · · Score: 1

      Free from competition

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    20. Re: Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not backed by gold anymore? So what? What is the intrinsic value of gold?

    21. Re:Self Serving Story? by satuon · · Score: 1

      If I had to wait for 10 minutes to get my starbucks coffee paid for I'd probably decide to just pay cash.

      If you are in physical proximity where you can just hand over cash, then use cash. Bitcoin is a way to send "cash" to someone who is NOT in the same room.

      When you send cash, the guy who receives it doesn't ask you to write down your name and address, date of the transaction, and mail it to the government. Bitcoin tries to bring that to remote transactions.

    22. Re:Self Serving Story? by RWerp · · Score: 2

      "Primecoin solves a somewhat useful mathematical problem instead of completely wasting computer cycles like Bitcoin does."

      Yeah, this was something which always bugged me about bitcoin - so much energy goes to waste and so much CO2 gets released into atmosphere to support the currency.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    23. Re:Self Serving Story? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a 100% anonymous currency (like cash) is also very easy to steal (like cash). You can't anonymously assert the ownership of an asset.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    24. Re: Self Serving Story? by RWerp · · Score: 2

      "Really ? you are kidding right ? It's clearly not backed by gold anymore. So what's it backed by ?"

      It's backed by the fact that you pay taxes with it.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    25. Re:Self Serving Story? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin could just become the "Gold" currency by which all other currencies are measured. $USD<=>BTC

      Why does there have to be 1 currency? Why not have a cryptocurrency that is completely anonymous and fast. You just created WhoreCoin, "the digital currency for ladies of the night". There's already a PotCoin. $DarkwebCoin. PayPal coin fails miserably and the company finally closes.

      Design of any system is a tradeoff and is going to have flaws. Why not carve out a usage where the flaws don't matter? Bitcoin is a bit like gold. It was an early currency. It was heavy and hard to move around. All the people rushed to mine it literally or figuratively out of the "nothing". Let the price track like gold.

      Then have it as the 'keys to the kingdom'. Pass a law that says the only legal cryptocurrency is Bitcoin and that only bitcoin$USD is legal.

      Both sides win. Bitcoin is regulated, taxed, treated like a legitimate currency and then each corner of the dark web can have their own private currency and BTC(Private Currency) exchange boards.

      Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange, in an attempt to appeal to get the younger crowed excited in commodities, adds Bitcoin. It becomes another traded item just like pork bellies. (They remake Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd as evil rich adopted brothers. Kevin Hart plays homeless scam artist. Chris Pratt plays a spoon fed Bitcoin analyst.)

      Congress passes a bill that authorizes a $1M purchase of bitcoins to act as a pseudo central bank. Congress and old people feel like they've thrown 'plenty of money' at the problem. If you walked up to a random stranger on the street you might be able to sell them one for $5. Put 1 BTC on a printed wallet and walk around a retirement home selling them for $1 a piece after you explain what they are. Plus they'll think they have control over it. "$1M for a bunch of pretend money is plenty.".

    26. Re:Self Serving Story? by horza · · Score: 0

      Why is the factually inaccurate troll marked "Insightful"? Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme, it's not legally dangerous, and it's not criminally dangerous. And obviously it's not doomed and people have been predicting its demise since day 1 and quite the opposite has happened.

      Phillip.

    27. Re:Self Serving Story? by horza · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is just cash and carries the same risks. Credit cards have exponentially more money stolen, and are completely unsafe, but that cost is hidden as a tax on society. VISA soaks up just enough fraud and theft to keep them legally and visibly safe, yet still made a $1.4bn profit in the last quarter. All the costs are passed on as part of the fees merchants pay which in turn we pay in higher prices in stores.

      If I used Bitcoin I would do the same as you, and actually use it for what it was designed to do: a currency with zero transaction fees.

      Phillip.

    28. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin is stupid, and alternative cryptocoins are equally if not more stupid.

      They are all pump and dump ponzi schemes where the early adopters sell their cryptocoins to the dumb people beneath them in the ponzi pyramid. Eventually there's nobody to sell them to except each other, and that's when the true value comes out. Zero.

    29. Re:Self Serving Story? by horza · · Score: 1

      Gold could have been seen as a high risk investment at the time. There were plenty of alchemists working on trying to turn other substances such as lead into gold, and science at the time couldn't prove it wasn't going to work. The moment it did the bottom of the market would drop out.

      At the base of it gold must have seen like some ponzi scheme. When nobody cared about it, people were just gathering it up off river beds and rock faces. Suddenly it becomes worth something when everybody decides it's desirable and by coincidence it is now hard to get hold of? Pretty suspicious. And why were people carrying around gold instead of the official currency of the time? Probably just criminals.

      So far the experiment of leaving Bitcoin take it's natural course is working pretty well.

      Phillip.

    30. Re: Self Serving Story? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Really ? you are kidding right ? It's clearly not backed by gold anymore. So what's it backed by ?

      It's backed by the fact that the government can shoot people until everyone agrees that it is valid. We could beat around the bush a lot more, but the threat of force (together with the ability to pay taxes that follows from that) is a key thing in making a currency valid.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    31. Re:Self Serving Story? by horza · · Score: 2

      You have missed the whole point of Bitcoin. And currency. Why do you think gold became an important commodity? The only reason was because they discovered a simple chemical test to determine its authenticity. This means somebody in Australia could take a lump of gold to India, and the local Indian merchant could validate the currency on-site and conclude a transaction. Bitcoin has the same property that you can validate it is a real Bitcoin. However the method it uses requires a widely distributed "directory" you can check, and to get this spread widely the currency needs to have momentum. Hence the failure of alt currencies to challenge, despite the worry of fragmentation.

      Certainly Bitcoin is more credible than other places I have money. For instance I have an online poker account which tells me I have $X in it, but of course there isn't any money in there at all. I just assume they will transfer money into my bank account if I ask them.

      Phillip.

    32. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Off-chain transactions can be instantaneous (e.g. both merchant and customer have coinbase.com accounts). But even for on-chain transactions, there is little reason to wait for the first confirmation (about 10 min); once the transaction has propagated (a few seconds) you can be fairly sure the payment will eventually go through (assuming a standard mining fee was included). It's not worth the risk of being caught attempting a double-spend for a coffee.

      2) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Sca...

      3) Anonymity (the lack privacy) is an issue. This is mitigated if you use off-chain transactions. In theory you could also use coinjoin and stealth addresses (implemented in DarkWallet) to have a bit more privacy. But certainly if privacy/money-laundering is your main concern, use cash.

    33. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not easy to use Bitcoin with 100% anonymity.

    34. Re:Self Serving Story? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin certainly has its hazards, such as the ongoing possibility that some hacker will invent a way to make the whole BTC world disappear in one sudden poof, but Ponzi is not one of them. The amount of BTC that can ultimately exist is limited by mathematics. The USD is limited by how fast we can run our printing presses.

    35. Re: Self Serving Story? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      you can also tax too. Thus being able to spend with out creating debt.

      Funny that, taxes. It's almost as if we spent the last 40 years being influenced by psychopaths who thought the worst thing in the world was the Government taking 10 percent.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    36. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin has credibility -because- it has a market. There are people willing to spend money for them already, right now. It's like a web of trust where all the participants are already trusting bitcoin, so it has value just because of that trust.

    37. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main reason to reject fiat currency is that to date there has been no reason to believe that banks and governments will actually follow the rules instead of manipulating things in their favour.

    38. Re:Self Serving Story? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The reason to reject governmental fiat currencies to date has been no substantial guarantee that banks and governments will not rig the game in their favor. The reason to reject non-governmental fiat currencies to date their vulnerability to interference or catastrophe. xCoins offer strong rules that are transparent and driven by consensus, as well as offering a robust infrastructure.

    39. Re: Self Serving Story? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      If you beloeve anything is immune from manipulation you are either monumentally naive or intrntionally ignorant.

    40. Re:Self Serving Story? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The value is not in the number, but in the integrity of the chain of numbers. The integrity of specific chains is preserved by the limitation upon raw number. The numbers are not provided in the market without differentiation between units. That is block-chains of any *Coin is provided to the market with differentiation between them. An alt coin that doesn't have a specific technical advantage over bitcoin is going to fail unless it can jump ahead of bitcoin in terms of adoption. Those with technical improvements have the potential to offer a chain of greater integrity. Being first and having the head start is a pretty good indicator of greater integrity as well.

    41. Re:Self Serving Story? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I hereby announce CO2coin, guaranteed to produce no C02 while mining.

      Please send bitcoin to my address to fund development. Any excess bitcoin after the coin is developed will be spent on planting a big CO2 gobbling tree.

      115L3G7me6ycskF1xAo3t8XC2zWSkmzy9J

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    42. Re:Self Serving Story? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      a currency with zero transaction fees.

      Except that there are generally transaction fees unless you're willing to set up and maintain quite a bit of your own infrastructure.

      As for the theft rate for credit cards, I'd note that it's mostly fraud, not theft. Only a slight distinction, but still there.

      The thing to worry about is the rate of theft/fraud. As somebody who's aware of bitcoin but not invested in it, I have to point out that it's my impression that my money is more at risk if stored as bitcoins than as US Dollars invested in a bank. That's a real problem, real statistics aside.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    43. Re:Self Serving Story? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Crypto currencies are ponzi via their nature, the first ones are easy to generate and the starters generate huge numbers of them. The late ones are very hard to generate and the late comers desperate to see free money from their hardware investment are desperate to sell it to everyone else. As soon as the marketing collapses and the run out of people to sell the currency to, the market starts to collapse. The other selling point that it facilitates financial transaction to commit crimes and that is promoted, well, that will cause two problems. One governments will take a dim view of that scheme and two attracting organised crime is never a good idea for a currency that is only as secure as your password and your digits (toes and fingers).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    44. Re:Self Serving Story? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Real currencies have some intrinsic value. I have to pay taxes, which means (in this part of the world) I have to obtain a sufficient number of dollars for that purpose. (This also means that I have to keep accounts in dollar-equivalents, or convert them to calculate taxes.) If I get into a lawsuit, the eventual result is likely to be that one party has to pay a certain number of dollars to the other. If I am found violating the law, I may have to pay a certain number of dollars as a fine. That's about all I can think of offhand.

      As far as credibility, there are a whole lot of people, all over the world, who have faith that their dollars will be worth something when they want to spend them. There are some really big institutions who have a direct interest in stability in major national currencies, and they've demonstrated the willingness and ability to act.

      Now, Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. I am never going to be required to keep my financial accounting in Bitcoins. I'm never going to have to gather some to pay taxes, fines, or court judgments. Bitcoin is worth only what people are willing to pay for it.

      As far as credibility goes, it's far, far behind the big national currencies. I have no interest in buying into Bitcoin, and I don't even care enough to set up a wallet if somebody wants to give me some. (Convert to dollars. I've got lots of ways to accept dollars.) Billions of people will agree with me (if they don't just say "Huh? What's that?" in some language or other).

      We aren't just starting with dollars on the one hand and Bitcoin on the other. Bitcoin has to demonstrate that it's significantly better than dollars to get anywhere near the same acceptance. So far, I don't see it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    45. Re: Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Gold has no 'intrinsic value' either - it's simply a metal with the following properties: 1) shininess, 2) color similarity to sunlight, 3) malleability, 4) relative scarcity, and 5) it never tarnishes. Put those together and you've got a substance that must be divine, so everyone wanted it. Everyone wants a scarce item? There's your value. Eventually the world's economies outgrew the constraints of the scarcity part of the equation - as demonstrated by multiplicative put in place even when the gold standard was worldwide - and most of the others had long since bit the dust. 'Fiat' currencies were a pretty natural development for this modern world.

    46. Re:Self Serving Story? by BalthCat · · Score: 1

      The problem is the whole "everyone who buys one early becomes a bajillionaire" thing.

    47. Re:Self Serving Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The energy is used to make sure the world-wide transaction network is secure. That's not waste.

  2. Bitcoin credibility? by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bitcoin has about as much credibility as Monopoly money in my mind. Asking if something can undermine the credibility of monopoly money doesn't really make any sense.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're just miffed because I have a hotel on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Imagine a cryptocurrency where you had to tell someone your private key to send them money. That'd be dumb, yet thats what using a credit card is. I am sure from your comment you have never tried using bitcoin or given it much thought.

    3. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dO nOt PaSs Go

    4. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clearly Bitcoin has enough credibility for people to value it at hundreds of dollars. You may not think much of it, but as long as there are people willing to exchange it for traditional currency or goods and services that's enough to keep it viable.

      The attraction of altcoins is that people who got in early on Bitcoin are not rich, simply because they mined vast quantities of it when mining was easy. People who missed the gold rush now see altcoins as offering a second chance. The only problem is that there are so many and most will fail, so you have to pick the right one AND get in very early with significant mining power (initial outlay).

      Actually it gets worse because most altcoins were designed to be ASIC-proof, but now ASICs are appearing to mine them anyway so there is yet more expense to stay competitive.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're just miffed because I have a hotel on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk.

      That is a violation of the rules. Houses and hotels must be as evenly distributed as possible across properties of the same group. So it is legal to have a hotel on Park Place, and four houses on Boardwalk, or four houses on each, or four on one and three on the other. But it is NOT legal to have three houses on one and a hotel on the other. Here are the official rules.

    6. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a currency which you feel is credible? If so, what do you feel makes it so? There are no wrong answers although anything related to "popularity" is a bit of a dumb answer as that affects availability, not credibility.

    7. Re: Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is there somewhere I can find a bitcoin to Pog to Beanie Baby to Tulip conversion chart?

    8. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Gold and perhaps silver are credible currencies.

    9. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just like a citizen arguing with the government - You forgot they have secret houserules that makes ok for them to do as they do. pointing to the official rules is pointless.

    10. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just miffed because I have a hotel on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk.

      Then you're cheating; the rules require players to build and sell improvements evenly. You'd either have four houses on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk, or a hotel on Park Place and four houses on Boardwalk.

    11. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why? Because they're rare? So what?

      If you now try the "because of their unique physical properties" gambit, I'd put more credibility into copper, lithium and magnesium...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not to mention that he's doing it wrong: you put your hotel on Boardwalk first, since you get the most money AND the most likely landing there thanks to the "Advance token to boardwalk" cards.

      But they aren't the best investment anyway; you'd do better putting your hotels on Orange, then Red/Yellow, then Light Blue...

      Tsk, tsk....

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    13. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? the fact that you can spend it at real stores and get real product doesn't mean anything to you?

    14. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hereby award you the Hermes Conrad award for meticulous technical correctness. It may be collected at the Central Bureaucracy upon reception of a properly filled out, signed, stamped and notarized Award Reception form.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      bitcoins only have value as long as they are convertible to dollars and euros. they can cease to have any value in a very short time. they aren not accepted in most places while dollars and euros are

    16. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      gold and silver are both in a limited enough supply to be manipulated by speculators

      that is why no responsible currency is based on it any more

    17. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      Cryptocurrencies in their current incarnation are so stupid because they suck power needlessly, to create something of psychological value only because it is scarce. They are increasing scarcity of power, to create a psychological unit assigned a psychological value because it is scarce. It doesn't make sense, not economically, physically, scientifically.

      The only way bitcoin makes sense is psychologically, and the psychology is a sociopathic, "I got mine Jack keep your hands off my stack" pathology. It is creating a number and calling it valuable, and taking up energy for this psychological money creation exercise.

      It would be a little better if they were actually advancing knowledge with their mining operations. Make it like SETI@home, have it do some processing that helps us know more about the universe.

    18. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this even mean? Asic proof?

    19. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Just like in real life, there are no rules for the person with that kind of money.

    20. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by swilly · · Score: 1

      Make sure that form is stamped five times, otherwise the head bureaucrat will summon the guards to bring him the form to fill out to have you taken away.

    21. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly Bitcoin has enough credibility for people to value it at hundreds of dollars.

      No -- clearly Bitcoin has enough potential for people to value it at hundreds of dollars.

      There's a difference. The price of Bitcoin was driven up in the past couple years mostly on the basis of what it might become, not so much what it already is. That's not "credibility" as a currency -- that's potential value as a speculative investment.

      You may not think much of it, but as long as there are people willing to exchange it for traditional currency or goods and services that's enough to keep it viable.

      Again, that's not why it has most of the value it has today. Most of the growth has been because there have been people willing to exchange traditional currency for it, not the other way around.

      Currencies can get their value from at least three components: (1) "inherent" ulility value of the basic material, (2) utility value of the currency as a medium of exchange, and (3) speculation due to investors and people happy to buy the currency because they think other people will ultimately need the currency for reasons (1) and/or (2).

      Paper dollars, for example, have almost no value of type (1), but they have a lot of type (2), and the U.S. dollar is popular enough around the world that lots of people view it as a safe enough investment for (3), which keeps its value higher than if it were only the internal currency of the U.S. Gold has some value of type (1) (i.e., applications requiring its properties, like jewelry and applications which use its conductivity and resistance to corrosion), and it functions in limited capacity in (2), but most of the increase in gold's value in recent years has come from (3).

      Now take Bitcoin. It has absolutely NONE of (1). Until relatively recently, it had extremely few everyday applications where it could be used for (2), and still there are significant problems to be overcome which will make it easy for average people to deal directly in it as a currency in safe and secure fashion. So the VAST majority (maybe 99% or more) of Bitcoin's value is about (3) -- random speculation as an investment, effectively gambling on the idea that it will eventually become widely adopted.

      That's not "credibility" -- yet. Maybe someday every Bitcoin early adopter's dream will come true, and it will pay off and that value will convert from (3) to (2). But I'm not gonna hold my breath, and I'm certainly not going to go out and buy virtual "money" whose value is currently mostly held up by a small number of investors. Say what you will about the "fiat" nature of the dollar or whatever, but you have hundreds of millions of people worldwide that depend on that value everyday, and they all have an interest in keeping it afloat. Bitcoin? I have no idea who holds most of the value, but I know it's concentrated in a much smaller group of people, and I have no reason to think that they won't dump and run screaming if trust in the "magic money" dies next week.

    22. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Gold and perhaps silver are credible currencies.

      Well, no, because I have no convenient way of checking either the purity nor mass of any gold I might get, and a metal-backed currency can stop being so at any time. On top of that, gold is soft enough for wear being a problem, but still too hard to cut pieces off as needed, so we'd be stuck with precut gold pieces (coins) which can't be actually trusted to carry their nominal value due to wear and theft.

      On a purely technical level, without getting into any economics or ideology, gold makes for a horrible currency.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Jmstuckman · · Score: 1

      According to the official "short game" rules, you may, indeed, build hotels after your third house.

      Here are the real official rules.

    24. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Make sure that form is stamped five times, otherwise the head bureaucrat will summon the guards to bring him the form to fill out to have you taken away.

      In Soviet Russia, five stamps summon... oh, forget it.

      Actually, I interrupt this Slashdot joke to point out that the number five actually plays a significant role in old Soviet Russia bureaucracy jokes. Quoth Wikipedia:

      The genitive plural of a noun (used with a numeral to indicate five or more of something, as opposed to the dual, used for two, three, or four, see Russian nouns) is a rather unpredictable form of the Russian noun, and there are a handful of words which even native speakers have trouble producing this form of (either due to rarity or an actual lexical gap). A common example of this is kocherga (fireplace poker). The joke is set in a Soviet factory. Five pokers are to be requisitioned. The correct forms are acquired, but as they are being filled out, a debate arises: what is the genitive plural of kocherga? Is it Kocherg? Kocherieg? Kochergov?... One thing is clear: a form with the wrong genitive plural of kocherga will bring disaster from the typically pedantic bureaucrats. Finally, an old janitor overhears the commotion, and tells them to send in two separate requisitions: one for two kochergi and another for three kochergi. In some versions, they send in a request for 4 kochergi and one extra to find out the correct word, only to receive back "here are your 4 kochergi and one extra." A similar story by Mikhail Zoshchenko involves yet another answer: after great care and multiple drafts to get the genitive case correct, including the substitution of "five ÑÑÑfÐ (pieces)" for "five pokers", the response comes back: the warehouse has no kocherezhek.

    25. Re: Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you liberals want to add regulations to monopoly too?!

    26. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Please name a currency that you find credible.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    27. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in case you didn't notice its not OK to point out all the obvious failings with crypto-concurrency and point out that its a step in the wrong direction.

      This is /. please fall in line troll

    28. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      People value all kinds of different silly things. The article was implying that Bitcoin has some kind of widespread credibility, which is absurd.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    29. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably don't have those colors, traded one of them to get dark blue in the first place, unless it was a natural. If someone is building on Blue, it's either a Hail Mary attempt to win the game early, or it's because they are already dominating and already built up everything else.

    30. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      But can you make sure and pay the cash reward portion in Bitcoin?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    31. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Seconded. Nothing like an article that makes a false assertion. =D

      Are new Soy products going to unseat McDonalds' Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese as the world's tastiest burger?

      Or since we're talking about bitcoins, how about this for a tag:

      Will the increased discussions about bitcoin finally reveal it as the scam it is?

    32. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just miffed because I have a hotel on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk.

      Then you're cheating; the rules [wikibooks.org] require players to build and sell improvements evenly. You'd either have four houses on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk, or a hotel on Park Place and four houses on Boardwalk.

      Anyone playing monopoly entirely by the official rules is playing it wrong.

    33. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...something of psychological value only because it is scarce. They are increasing scarcity of power, to create a psychological unit assigned a psychological value because it is scarce.

      That actually describes most money... paper money is intrinsically worthless, as are the 0's and 1's that make up the data representing your bank account. They only hold value because folks have agreed to value them, and retain scarcity because folks don't just go out and print more/change the values stored in their databases, and because you count on them to continue to do so.

      When you get right down to it, the economy runs on faith.

    34. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silver is, to a certain degree, as it has a reasonably high industrial use factor. Gold is exactly as credible as bitcoin as over 90 percent of its value is from beauty based investments. Beauty us fleeting. Gold plating, at least, doesn't change based on opinion, but is naught but a tiny amount of gold's value.

      Trouble is, silver, in the quantity you need to buy a car or house is expensive and complex to transport.

    35. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your answer is that you can't think of a credible currency, but bitcoin sucks?

      So axiomatic.

    36. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by edremy · · Score: 1

      The Altarian Dollar, the Flainian Pobble Bead and the Triganic Pu are all perfectly credible currencies.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    37. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have never seen hyperinflation, right? Neither bank confiscations, right?

    38. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's fairly obvious bitcoins are in wide spread use even if they aren't used by everybody yet. I've got a business and we're spending the bits as fast as we're bringing them in. In fact our suppliers are even getting in on it now so there is no shortage of places to spend them.

      If you don't see the value in it your blind to its usefulness. While I can kind of understand why non-business types don't see its usefulness there is a wider pool of users who do.

      Merchants love it as credit card fees (particularly for large purchases) are ridicules. On some products my company sells the credit card fees are $60-100 USD (2-3%) and the profit margins (in some instances) are less than this (depending on the product configuration). If we can eliminate or reduce these fees we can as much as double our profits on these items.

    39. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin has about as much credibility as Monopoly money in my mind. Asking if something can undermine the credibility of monopoly money doesn't really make any sense.

      You must have missed the part where bitcoin sells for hundreds of dollars per bitcoin, and is used to buy and sell real-world stuff, and exchanges buy and sell bitcoins. Maybe you're just jealous because you didn't jump aboard while they were super cheap.

      Don't get me wrong -- they are an incredibly dangerous investment since their value could go to nothing in an instant. The same is true of several currencies, but they at least have an entire nation that would get ruined if it they were to devalue their currency. I don't know to what extent the same is true about bitcoin, and it does have the benefit that more can't be arbitrarily printed, so I'm not qualified to comment on their reliability.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    40. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem I see with Bitcoin is that ALT coins are effectively substitutes for Bitcoin, so while the number of Bitcoins is limited, the available substitute digital currencies is infinite. Bitcoin relies on network effects to have an advantage over its substitutes, but has the downside that increasing its adoption results in a massive shift of wealth to a relatively small group of early adopters.

    41. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding. For instance... almost every person I've ever played monopoly with - even from different geographic regions - has generally followed the convention where all fines go into a pot that is collected by anyone landing directly on "Free Parking".

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    42. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin will be a credible currency when 1 BTC is valued at 1 BTC and not compared to the dollar. I don't think "how much is the dollar valued at today"? It's a dollar.

      I'm a country the uses the eruo. I don't look at a liter of milk and think "hmm, how much is that in yen?". I look at it and say, it's 2,45.

    43. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      You're just miffed because I have a hotel on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk.

      Personal experience has it that the low rent district is the best - purely because no one wants it, and you can go to hotels readily. So you're pretty much dinging everyone early on in the game and getting tons of money out of it.

      ANyhow, if the mere existence of alternative coins already devalues bitcoin, then bitcoin has already lost. Because now the value of your currency is dependent on the mere existence of another currency and how they choose to act.

      That's like saying the value of the US Dollar can depend on how many zeroes Zimbabwe decided to put on their money today - while there is an influence (thanks to currency conversion) it doesn't influence the end user THAT much. Bread doesn't go up but USD$1 a loaf because Zimbabwe added three zeroes today instead two.

      I think article poster is bitter that everyone realizes just how easy it is to do something like Bitcoin and that's undermining the value of those with significant holdings because any idiot can make their own currency and when it does, they lose 10% of their virtual holdings.

      Heck, Ars Technica created their own currency to give everyone experience with doing a cryptocurrency. It could be used to buy pointless things to decorate your posts with (hats!), and that's it. No value otherwise since there's nothing else you could do with them on purpose. I suppose the interesting thing was is how many people went crazy with it and used high end rigs. Even though a couple of months later, they killed it all, wiped all wallets and even got rid of all the hats so everyone was back to the way they were. (And no, they actually said this at the beginning that it would happen in a few months so no point getting huge hauls).

    44. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is a "short game"? Monopoly game takes around 20-30 mins if played by the rules and players know what they are doing.

      Basically the first trade happens as soon as it's possible to make two full series with the cards in play. Then the players with full series build them up, leaving themselves one chance to hit tthe other players house complex. At this point the others have one or two round left to get their own houses up. If they don't, they will drop out in a couple of rounds by hitting one of the built up streets. And yeah, the best series are the purple, orange, and (yellow or red?) the one after orange anyways. Blue is way too expensive, and way too low traffic statistically.

    45. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the part where bitcoin sells for hundreds of dollars per bitcoin, and is used to buy and sell real-world stuff, and exchanges buy and sell bitcoins.

      The same can essentially be said for cat shit coffee...

    46. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin does have some value of what you call "type 2":

      * Bitcoin is the main currency of tor black markets. It is the ONLY way to buy illegal drugs reasonably safely. Do not underestimate the scale of these markets. This gives Bitcoin an inherent value. I think criminals selling drugs also hold on to their Bitcoins for a while because they can't just cash them out, since this would raise suspicion. This creates scarcity, upping the value.

      * I've invested a bunch of money in Bitcoins a while ago, so I already have a bunch of them sitting around. Whenever I buy something at a (legit!) webshop, it is way easier to just send them a bunch of Bitcoins than using Maestro (the usual way to make online payments in Europe): Maestro requires me to insert my credit card in a separate little device and copy numbers from the web application to the device and back from the device to the web application. Paying with Bitcoins is just a few clicks away and (often) instant.

    47. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, we're playing by house rules.

    48. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by horza · · Score: 1

      Except the Catch-22. It will never get adopted if it doesn't gain traction, that requires the early adopters trading what they have to get momentum going to make it worth others mining it. I thought about buying a few for novelty value but didn't bother when I saw it had already broken the $2 barrier. I remember early adopters boasting of the profits they had made when it reached $11. There was that story of one early adopter who mined what became $2M worth but had thrown away the hard drive with them on, and fruitlessly hunted around his local rubbish tip. Despite the paranoid Bitcoin haters infesting this thread, it really doesn't sound like there was any nefarious get-rich-quick scheme involved here.

      Phillip.

    49. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin has about as much credibility as Monopoly money in my mind. Asking if something can undermine the credibility of monopoly money doesn't really make any sense.

      Hey, here's a little riddle for you. Do you know what they call Monopoly money in real life?

      Quantitative Easing.

      I find it hilarious that you are comparing Bitcoin to Monopoly money. Between Hasbro and the US Government, I wonder which one is printing more money every month. Talk about credibility.

    50. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      This variation is otherwise known as the "forever game" of Monopoly. Without the money sink of the fines, the game is virtually guaranteed to drag on for hours and hours, thoroughly and completely boring everybody.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    51. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have even an order of magnitude estimate for what % of consumers are using bitcoin regularly (as opposed to a one novelty) and what % of global transactions are in bitcoin ?
      I bet the collectors market for pet rocks is bigger then bitcoin
      PS: the N Y Times had an article recently about how dell and othe bitcoin accepting vendors are NOT, repeat NOT seeing either a lot of traffic or a trend upwards

    52. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      When you get right down to it, the economy runs on faith.

      I've never been much of a fan of this redefinition of the word faith. In my mind the fundamental definition for faith is belief without evidence, which does not really apply to the economy (there's plenty of evidence that the economy exists). I suppose you could claim that there's no evidence the economy will continue to exist in the future, but I think the word that better describes this reality is speculation. The economy runs on speculation. This is undeniable and explains why the economy is cyclical--there is an inherent instability.

    53. Re:Bitcoin credibility? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Faith" has several meanings. I have faith, for example, that I'll get money deposited in my account next payday. I have no reason to think that the company cannot or will not do that. On the other hand, it wouldn't send me into a spiritual crisis if my employer didn't pay me.

      Modern money does rest on the faith that other people will continue to accept it as payment for stuff. This faith is backed by a good deal of evidence and history. It isn't hard to imagine a situation where dollars suddenly become useless, but such situations look both extremely unlikely and sufficiently dire that that won't be the primary concern.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Throwing the baby out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While there are some pump & dump operators out there, not all altcoins are bad

    Saying that all altcoins are bad is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater

    If all altcoins are bad, bitcoin will be bad as well, after all, what is bitcoin without the number crunching - just like all the other altcoins ?

  4. Announcing ICoin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is exactly one ICoin and it is infinitesimally subdivided by typing the letter "i" into a plain ASCII text file. The value of a single 'i" is 1/(total number of "i"s ever typed).

    Enjoy!

    1. Re:Announcing ICoin! by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I read that as iCoin at first. Which would have immediately created a horde of fanbois using it.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  5. how meany people are useing Bitcoin just to play t by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    how meany people are useing Bitcoin just to play the market like stocks?

  6. It's all funny money... by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of this is funny money.

    Bitcoins are just in your imagination.
    USDollars are merely imagined by the USGovernment.
    Gold has no real value other than using it for things like electrical contacts, etc.
    None of this is real money.
    If you want real value, get a basket of eggs, hatch the chicks, raise them up, feed them pasture, your other asset - you are landed I hope - and they'll lay more eggs. Now you're in business and can feed yourself. When you succeed at that start feeding other people and they'll give you something of real value like a pork chop or firewood to stay warm with. What ever you do, don't accept cash, bitcoins, gold or other fraudulent currencies for your eggs. You want real value for your real things.

    1. Re:It's all funny money... by SpacePunk · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's difficult to pay your electric bill with chickens, and hogs.

    2. Re:It's all funny money... by magarity · · Score: 2

      How many chickens did you trade for your computer?

    3. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I traded someone a computer in return for fixing my car.

    4. Re:It's all funny money... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      USDollars are merely imagined by the USGovernment.

      Oh they are "merely imagined" by a lot more than just the US Government. And that's why they have actual value.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:It's all funny money... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You make your electricity with a generator that burns the case you produce in your biomass digester. You put the chicken and hog shit in the digester.

    6. Re:It's all funny money... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      It's difficult to pay your electric bill with chickens, and hogs.

      True, but it will get you a hooker. (Until they closed the Chicken Ranch.)

    7. Re:It's all funny money... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The value of the US dollar is a bit like a strapless evening dress on a 70 year old: Kept up by the collective willpower of everyone 'cause everyone fears the worst if it should drop for some reason.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:It's all funny money... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Oh they are "merely imagined" by a lot more than just the US Government. And that's why they have actual value.

      And that "imagining" of new FRN's is also why commodity producers around the world demand twice as many FRN's for their goods as they did a decade ago.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:It's all funny money... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You want real value for your real things.

      The problem, of course, is that they're your chickens and land only because people agree so. Property rights are no less imaginary than currency.

      The truth of the matter is that "value" is an entirely made-up concept. A chicken has no property of being valuable; all value you ascribe to it is entirely in your own imagination. Which is of course what allows people to value things differently, thus making trade possible. So it's only appropriate that we use a made-up concept of currency as an abstract representation for the made-up concept of value - or economic value, to precise.

      In other words, there is not - and cannot even in theory be - non-funny money. Value being subjective is the very heart of the concept of economy. And that means any imaginable way of measuring it is ultimately just make-believe.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:It's all funny money... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If you want real value, get a basket of eggs,

      Putting all your eggs in one basket? You really ARE a contrarian investor, aren't you?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:It's all funny money... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on your definition of "hog".

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    12. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nonsense. Sure people with US dollar holdings want it to retain it's value, that's obvious. People who own a house want it to retain it's value, as do people who own businesses, jewelry, and on and on.

      However the value of the Ameribuck isn't kept up by "collective willpower". This currency is freely traded and fully convertible. Any factor, any factor at all that makes currency traders think that the US is weaker causes the dollar to fall. It can and does do so routinely. Why? Because no one wants to be left "holding the bag".

      If the currency is artificially inflated and there appears, anywhere, a mechanism to adjust the currency to it's true value, then that leaves dollar holders exposed to that loss in value. And most ordinary folk are keenly aware of the value of their property.

      If you want a serious lesson in manipulated currencies, check out any non-convertible currency. Black markets rule the day and no one believes in the official exchange rate. At least no one who isn't paid to do so! And when you leave the country in question, the currency you hold is often (in any practical sense) worth nothing. No one wants it.

    13. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is simply a tool of exchange. It's a utility to make trade easier and "cheap", otherwise the economy would be bogged down with the overhead of trading. There is no such thing as "real money" because it's purely a man-made construct. US Dollars have value because I know I can trade them for goods or services, therefore I can accept them for my own services. An effective trading tool requires a lot of credibility and wide acceptance. Lumping gold, US dollars and bitcoins together and saying they all have no real value is outrageous. Of course, extreme circumstances can make ANYTHING's relative value change - it has little to do with currency as a concept. If you are starving you would pry trade lumps of gold for food if necessary but that has nothing to do with the philosophy behind currency.

    14. Re:It's all funny money... by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      USDollars are merely imagined by the USGovernment.

      It's a common misconception that USDollars are not backed by metal. If you don't want USDollars, the government will be happy to quickly give you some lead for it. Also available is depleted uranium and several other metals.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    15. Re:It's all funny money... by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      The US dollar has value because that is what you need to pay your taxes. Everybody needs to pay their taxes, so they need the money. There is demand, so there is a value.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    16. Re:It's all funny money... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The truth of the matter is that "value" is an entirely made-up concept. A chicken has no property of being valuable; all value you ascribe to it is entirely in your own imagination.

      A chicken can be food. A chicken can produce food. Food is one of the basic needs of humans. Therefore, a chicken is about as close as one can get to "inherent value."

      Anything that provides fundamental human needs like food, water, shelter, clothing, protection, etc. has more fundamental value than anything else. If a survival situation, these are the things people will ALWAYS need. Pretending that that "value" is "entirely in your own imagination" is denying the basic fact that humans are animals and NEED basic things to survive.

      Also, in a survival situation, other humans will give up ANYTHING they have to satisfy their basic human needs. So the value of anything that can't directly satisfy those needs is ultimately fluctuating, but at some level things that can satisfy them have the most basic type of value that exists for humans.

      Value being subjective is the very heart of the concept of economy. And that means any imaginable way of measuring it is ultimately just make-believe.

      Just because value is mostly subjective doesn't mean that things don't have inherent value. The things I mentioned above have some sort of base "value" because humans will always need them.

      I sort of get what you're saying that availability of something (and especially excess) may change the market for some things. But that doesn't mean that the basic items lost value. Just because I can now buy a chicken for $1 instead of $10 doesn't mean that the chicken I already own has "lost value." The chicken I already own still provides me with food, which satisfies a fundamental human need. Even if the market value for chickens may be a lot lower, my chicken will still have high inherent value to me, since without it, I might starve.

      On top of these basic human needs, we can talk about things with high utility value for achieving those needs, like tools (and perhaps weapons). Those don't have direct value in the same way, because we may be able to survive as animals without them. But they may have a direct connection toward achieving our basic needs, and that also places a high utility value on them.

      On top of that, we begin to build more constructed social "utility value" (what will allow you to have higher status and therefore be more secure in your fundamental needs, etc.?), currencies (which function as a medium of exchange and will, except in cases of complete social breakdown, allow one to purchase the means to fulfill basic human needs), etc. Then on top of that we begin to build all sorts of other social things whose utility value toward basic human needs is less clear -- those are the things whose value actually fluctuates significantly.

      The problem with your definition is that it is based on a concept of "value" that only occurs in exchanging goods. There is also a concept of inherent utility "value" to indviduals who possess basic things that fluctuates a lot less than the market. In our complex economies and "civilized" social structures, we rarely tend to talk about this inherent value for goods, but it's there. If you were a subsistence farmer living off the land in a remote location, your chickens would indeed have inherent value to you, no matter whether they'd be worth anything to the merchant in a town over the mountain.

      I assume your response will be: "But all of your made-up scenarios presume some sort of dire circumstances where people are competing for survival! That's the whole point -- value depends on circumstances." And you'd be partly right, but partly wrong. The market value of items does indeed change, but their fundamental value to a specific human need not. If I buy a survival kit that has 100 days of food in it for me, that item has the fundamental value of "100-days-food-needs-met" for me

    17. Re:It's all funny money... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now please explain the lack of value for the Cuban currency. Or do you want to tell us that there's no taxes in communism?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:It's all funny money... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The US dollar is quite overvalued. Actually, what keeps it propped up is that it is still the de facto international trade currency and that everyone who as much as thinks about trading internationally in a different currency gets a kick to the nuts. As soon as Ahmedingbats though aloud of creating an Euro-based oil exchange, he was being built up as the next target. Once he dropped the idea, suddenly no more talk about the Iran as the evil incarnate country. Did anything else change 'round that area in the meantime except that their Euro-oil plans were put on hold?

      Btw, just for kicks, here's an even older article, talking about someone else who did and wasn't swayed so easily.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USDollars are merely imagined by the USGovernment.

      Let's assume that your assertion was true.

      The thing is, every US citizen has to pay taxes, and the US Government recognizes the USDollar as the only valid currency to pay them.

      Another thing is that the US Government and any state institution in the US pays their bills and accepts payment in the form of USDollars.

      So, even if we blindly assume your "USDollars are merely imagined by the USGovernment" assertion isn't nonsense, the fact that the US Government deals exclusively with them and every US citizen is forced to deal with them in a number of ways is reason enough to disprove your funny money bullshit.

    20. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the US dollar has velocity because that is what you need to pay your taxes (I don't because I'm not a US person). Velocity is arguably more important than value. If a currency has no velocity it stops being useful to a nation as it doesn't continue to facilitate the exchange of goods and services for expected future realisation.

      Simply put, you will stop working for unit_of_currency if you believe that you can't exchange it for goods and services in the future, and you will stop spending unit_of_currency if you believe that your supply of unit_of_currency will not be replenished. Taxation places a requirement that you continue to need unit_of_currency to pay the next upcoming tax bill, which ensures that you will sell whatever good or service you provide in unit_of_currency.

      Objects like bitcoin and gold make for crappy currencies precisely because they hold value even as their velocity dries up, which encourages hoarding, resulting in a drying up of trade. Inflation on virtually every nation's currency discourages people from hoarding currency by stuffing it in their mattresses, and instead encourages people to instead loan out their excess cash flow in the form of savings and investments, again allowing velocity to be maintained.

      The absolute value of a unit_of_currency is irrelevant, but the first derivative dv/dt is immensely important. If I build a house and receive 1U or 1M U for the work, in either case the amount I receive being the customary value for building a house, I'm still receiving 1 "building a house" worth of forward value, which I can exchange for goods and services equal in value to 1 "building a house". The rate dv/dt however effects how punitive the effect of not spending, saving or investing my money will be.

      The danger to an economy happens when people are mislead as to what the actual dv/dt of their currency is, or the velocity falls leading to a trade freeze. People and factories stop working, and the wealth of the nation dries up. If people stop producing goods and services there ain't enough to go round, no matter how much money you print or how much you hoard. In real terms there is always a surplus of human labor and ingenuity, and there is likely a surplus of most raw materials, but if velocity dries up nothing matters, you can't get people to work and you can't get materials to where they need to be used. You get the current financial meltdown and everybody loses from the impending shortages.

    21. Re:It's all funny money... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The US dollar has value because that is what you need to pay your taxes. Everybody needs to pay their taxes, so they need the money. There is demand, so there is a value.

      I gather the Zimbabwean's needed to pay taxes in Zimbabwe dollars. How did that work out?

      All currencies are a collective fiction that works as long as enough people keep beleiving it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    22. Re:It's all funny money... by satuon · · Score: 1

      This is an old fallacy, that only food has "real value". Things have different values to different people, or even to the same people in different situations.

      Examples: A bottle of water is worth more in the desert than near the river. Same bottle of water, different value. Why? Because different situation. A good steel knife is worth more than a gold bar if you are stranded on a lonely island for 10 years like Robinson Crusoe, but not if you are in the center of New York.

    23. Re:It's all funny money... by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Whats all that got to do with the price of eggs?

      --
      John_Chalisque
    24. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US dollar has value because I don't want to carry chickens in my car to pay for dinner, rent, and my internet provider. When there's 300 million citizens that don't want to carry around live chickens, then we all have some interest in a currency.

    25. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting post until you use the survival scenarios. Of course value depends on circumstances, but I'm not currently planning for a disaster. So, I wouldn't even pay $1 for a chicken, because I don't intend to raise it, I don't intend to collect eggs, and I don't intend to pluck feathers, kill it, and cook it. The value to me is less than 0, you'd have to pay me to take a chicken home after work today and it wouldn't be a small sum :)

      So again we're back to economics and supply-and-demand. The way you value a chicken is so much different than the way I value a chicken, that the only way you can generalize it any further is to say there's a market for chickens, some people participate and others don't. Chickens don't have any value to me today, thanks, so whatever you're using for inherent value isn't appropriate for my economic choices, or indeed I may be a representative sample of some large part of the population.

    26. Re:It's all funny money... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      A chicken can be food. A chicken can produce food. Food is one of the basic needs of humans. Therefore, a chicken is about as close as one can get to "inherent value."

      The part you quoted was clumsy, but I think the GP's point was that your perceived property rights over the chicken are an abstract socially-enforced concept and thus the chicken has no value that isn't true also of dollar bills - also an abstract socially-enforced concept.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:It's all funny money... by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Yes, because everyone growing their own food is the path to national wealth and quality of life.

    28. Re:It's all funny money... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      The inherent value of national fiat currency is as a unit of business with the government of that country -- mainly taxes, but also in commerce with the government. (When enough people use a currency for business with its founding government then they might also use it for other purposes.)

      Fewer people care about paying Cuban taxes, or doing business with the Cuban government, so the value of that currency is lower.

    29. Re:It's all funny money... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're hard of reading. I said get a basket of eggs. I didn't say put your eggs all in one basket or keep them there. Real world experience would do you wonders.

    30. Re:It's all funny money... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you eat firewood? I never said food is the only thing of real value. Are you simply hard of reading or just off topic?

    31. Re:It's all funny money... by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Be careful conflating the velocity of money with inflation. They are very different. However, I agree that all existing digital currencies that I'm aware of are doomed to failure as currencies due to their lack of any control on inflation/deflation, and particularly their inherently deflationary design (after their initial inflationary period).

    32. Re:It's all funny money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chickens are the computer. 64K of chicks is enough for anyone to run any program.

    33. Re:It's all funny money... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      27.

      But that isn't the point. Odd the little things that people fixate on. Perhaps you're not good at algebra.

    34. Re:It's all funny money... by magarity · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is the point. Money is a generic medium of exchange. Calling for money to be abolished in favor of barter is just crazy talk.

      How many chickens (or pigs or dogs) does Intel HQ need to barter (and then transport) to the fabrication facilities in SE Asia to get the CPUs for all the computers? Yeah, there's a super efficient financial system.

    35. Re:It's all funny money... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Actually, what you wrote was "if you want real value, get a basket of eggs," Singular. That's your definition of "real value", and your advice. Not "get one or more baskets of eggs." Also, if everyone got "a basket of eggs" and started hatching hens, the value of eggs and chickens would quickly drop to nothing, as there would be such an abundance that you wouldn't be able to give them away, but instead have to pay to have the excess destroyed

      But let's get back to the real world. I can buy eggs in the store for a lot less than I could produce them myself ( large eggs are $1.44 a dozen thanks to economies of scale). And I don't have to worry about having too many or not enough at any one time - I buy just what I need. I'm sure my neighbours also appreciate that I don't raise chickens.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  7. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some altcoins are actually interesting (eg huntercoin has a way to mine by playing a bomberman type game).

    1. Re:No by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Some altcoins are actually interesting (eg huntercoin has a way to mine by playing a bomberman type game).

      Geez. And I thought I was easily amused!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get drunk while you play if you want.

    3. Re:No by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I turned to spirits for investment. I mean, where else do you get 20% and more for your money?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As opposed to bitcoin which totally isn't a pump and dump scheme?

  9. like all investments in something unproven... by silfen · · Score: 1

    Like all investments in something unproven, there is a lot of risk. And frequently, people who don't know what they are doing are making stupid bets. I don't see the problem.

    1. Re:like all investments in something unproven... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all investments, there is a lot of risk. Fixed that for you.

      Though if you're investing in "currency" you're doing it wrong.

  10. There a war on by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Bitcoin is a social movement dedicated to the elimination of central banks by providing a superior alternative.

    This is obviously of concern to the entire class of people who derive unearned benefits via the operation of central banks. That class has an well-trained group of mercenaries that specialize in identifying, infiltrating, and disrupting social movements which threaten the profits of the ruling classes (see the transformation of Occupy the Fed into Occupy Wall Street into irrelevance) via well documented methods (see Snowden leaks, etc.)

    Bitcoin is going to be attacked from every angle until such time until either it or central banks no longer exist.

    1. Re: There a war on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get a job

    2. Re:There a war on by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      ...has an well-trained group of mercenaries that specialize in identifying, infiltrating, and disrupting social movements which threaten the profits of the ruling classes...

      Here you go...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:There a war on by digsbo · · Score: 0

      Looks like you got modded "-1, disagree".

      These downmodders are the same kinds of people who in 1900 thought the pound sterling would always be the world reserve currency.

    4. Re:There a war on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin is a social movement dedicated to the elimination of central banks by providing a superior alternative.

      Shady backroom exchanges, absolutely zero protection for the consumer, complete lack of anonymity (yes, yes, Bitcoin isn't anonymous, but that's what the Bitcoin chucklefuck fanbois keep talking up), et cetera, et cetera.

      There's literally no reason to use Bitcoin other than for shits and giggles. Superior alternative? It's inferior in every way.

    5. Re:There a war on by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 0

      It's a fun way to be proved right.

      They don't even bother pretending to hide what they are doing.

    6. Re:There a war on by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin is a social movement dedicated to the elimination of central banks by providing a superior alternative.

      Except it isn't a superior alternative in any way and it just changes who the 'central banks' are to the ones who buy the most mining power.

      (see the transformation of Occupy the Fed into Occupy Wall Street into irrelevance)

      Oh, you're one of those morons. The Occupy WhatTheFuckEver failed because it was a bunch of idiots who utterly fail to understand how the world works. The 'movement' was a bunch of 1%ers too stupid to realize they were part of the one percent showing up in with Northface tents and backpacks bought with daddy's money acting all uppity while they shit in sinks in restaurant bathrooms and got in the way of people actually trying to get work done.

      Nothing about the 'movement' was useful in any way, it was just a bunch of lazy ignorant fucks complaining that someone who got off their asses and did things with their lives and that they weren't giving it all to them while they sit on the street complaining rather than doing something to actually change their place in the world.

      Bums who live on the street have more credibility than any Occupy moron.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:There a war on by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:There a war on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's literally no reason to use Bitcoin other than for shits and giggles.

      Really? You can't think of single use for a technology that can distinguish one piece of digital data from a bit-perfect copy of that data? Think of what happens when you using those Satoshi (fractional Bitcoin) to cryptographically sign documents: digital notaries! What good is that, other that how incredibly fucking useful it is in the legal world? Sign a document with a Satoshi, and that document has an owner. What if that document is, say a concert ticket? I can now sell my ticket to someone else without needing an escrow agent like stubhub. Transferring the Satoshi transfers ownership of the ticket. Think media, tickets, stamps, ...it's endless.

  11. Very amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Implying that Bitcoin has any credibility to begin with..

  12. hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who supports any sort of crypto currency could say the same about bitcoin. Early adopters/(founders?) of bitcoin still control a huge number of bitcoin, so how is that not a pump and dump scheme itself?

    I'm not a fan of crypto currencies at all.

    1. Re:hilarious by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When Bitcoin was launched, Satoshi had only been mining for a day or so. If you had been paying attention to the right forums, you could have started mining more or less at the same time he did and in fact some people (like Hal Finney) did exactly that.

      What's more, Satoshi does not appear to have dumped his coins. Nor did he engage in much pumping. Indeed once people started hyperbolically talking about how Bitcoin would bring about world peace, trying to get Wikileaks to accept it and so on he retreated into the background and eventually left. His coins are still there.

      Creating something new with no built in advantage for yourself, being totally honest about it, and then when its value soars not selling ..... is pretty much the opposite of a pump and dump scheme.

    2. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being totally honest about it means not hiding behind an internet handle. You want me to trust you and your currency? I need to know who you are what your qualifications are.

    3. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you can provide us with a list of people owning stock in the federal reserve.

    4. Re:hilarious by dugancent · · Score: 1

      1. The United States federal government.

      That's good enough for me.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    5. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even know what the fed is, but it's more trustworthy?

      Protip: the federal reserve banks are not part of the government.

      The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

    6. Re:hilarious by dugancent · · Score: 1

      I know that. You asked who the main investor was, not who it was owned by.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    7. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a different AC, but anyway do you have a source for your claim that the united states federal government is a stockholder in the federal reserve system? I do not think that is correct.

    8. Re:hilarious by TeknoHog · · Score: 0

      I am teknohog. I only "pump and dump" women.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:hilarious by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Creating something new with no built in advantage for yourself, being totally honest about it, and then when its value soars not selling ..... is pretty much the opposite of a pump and dump scheme.

      Well, then. We're clear on the fact that when the pump-and-dump operators took over, Satoshi retreated from the scene.

      That doesn't change what bitcoin became rather quickly, and what is is now.

    10. Re:hilarious by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We're clear on the fact that when the pump-and-dump operators took over

      Took over what? The blockchain? Development of the miner? What?

      Pump and dump people exist. Just because some people pump and dump shares doesn't mean shares are a pump and dump scheme, nor does it mean that pump and dump people took over the stock market.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is: once everyone starts using bitcoins, inflation and scarcity will cause people to start using smaller and smaller parts. If Satoshi would hold on to his coins for 10-20 years, and then dump them when others are using small fractions of bitcoins, he would either get filthy rich or (more likely) destroy the market.

    12. Re:hilarious by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, assuming Bitcoins do take over the world, Satoshi can come out of seclusion and buy most of Europe. Nope, no way that could be a downside.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. Re:how meany people are useing Bitcoin just to pla by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    How many people are using their savings just to play the market like stocks?!

  14. Kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is like Britney Spears complaining that lady gaga is a non talent attention whore.

    1. Re: Kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hit that x2

  15. ...because they can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People make these alternative currencies because they can. If Bitcoin is threatened by their mere existence, then it can't be a particularly good currency.

    1. Re:...because they can. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You think the USD would retain any credibility if everyone and their dog could legally start printing their own money?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:...because they can. by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Sure. You can print/mint any currency you want, as long as it's not meant to pose as federal reserve currency. There is nothing illegal about it.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  16. seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin never had any credibility.

  17. Is this a perfect example? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

    Of Betteridge's Law?

    No seems a perfectly fitting answer.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  18. I don't have any altcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have any altcoins. It's not that I hate them. I just. don't. care. If you think it's nothing more than a scheme to enrich the founders (and Bitcoin probably is too, I'm looking at you Satoshi or whatever your psedonym is), then don't participate. It really is that simple.

    I've got a little physical silver and and greenbacks for the ZA or whatever. I don't have much use for eCurrency; but if others think differently, who am I to stop them? It doesn't seem to be harming the other currencies.

  19. Hate to be the one to point this out... by cshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But they said the exact same thing about Linux distributions in the 90's, after the post Redhat influx of distros. What we learned from that experience, and some of us knew it at the time, was that the more people you have working in their own isolated environments, solving the problems that are important to them... the more innovation you have in the greater Linux space. It's the trickle down effect in open source software, and it's what makes a product or product ecosystem stronger. And we're seeing the same effect in the Bitcoin space. Just look at the proliferation of Scrypt variation, Gravity wells, different variations on proof of work, proof of stake, and others. Like Linux, Bitcoin is more than a bundle of software products, it's an entire ecosystem. To dismiss that, and say that there should only be about Bitcoin seriously misses the way open source innovation works. The rest is all marketing, which is bullshit by definition.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

    1. Re:Hate to be the one to point this out... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, but well written, reasoned, and logical posts about bitcoin are not allowed.

    2. Re:Hate to be the one to point this out... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      actually linux only became strong after corporations put in features business wanted, and other corporation monetized it including ways to have vendor lock-in

    3. Re:Hate to be the one to point this out... by dugancent · · Score: 0

      The definition of marketing:

        noun
      the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.

      I don't see the word bullshit, or any synonym of it. Therefore it is not "by definition".

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:Hate to be the one to point this out... by somenickname · · Score: 2

      You aren't the only one that thinks that: http://www.coindesk.com/need-a.... A lot of the altcoins are definitely scams but, there is actually some legitimate work going on that is pretty interesting. Whether or not cryptocurrency ends up becoming mainstream or not is still unclear but, from a computer science standpoint, I think it's all pretty interesting. Maybe it's a fad that will go down in flames or maybe it will stabilize into something that benefits society. Either way, I've never understood all the /. hate for cryptocurrencies. It's a very nerdy and interesting modern development that no one has been forced to become involved with.

    5. Re:Hate to be the one to point this out... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      This. Exactly what I think about altcoins, the outsourced R&D division of Bitcoin Inc... in an ideal world. The hard truth is that it takes a hard fork for any real change in the Bitcoin network, and it's hard to see a consensus coming up with all the alternatives.

      The real (crypto)?anarchist utopia is about different co-existing currencies, may the best coin win, at least for their 15 blocks of fame. Exchanges are a bottleneck for now, as well as old-money investors who get stuck on certain coins. The REAL future is with Boolberry.. for now :-j

      OTOH, the network effect ensures a place for Bitcoin for a good while. It's still the gold standard against which other cryptocurrencies are measured. It may well remain as a reserve/reference currency, as more agile coins take the stage for daily commerce and feel the buzz of technological development.

      Bitcoin is like the central cardioid in Mandelbrot Set, spreading love for the hairy fringe of the new mathematical frontier.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Hate to be the one to point this out... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How do you do vendor lock-in with Linux? If I don't want to pay Red Hat anything, I can use CentOS. The only reason to use RHEL is support and perhaps certification, since I can get literally everything else (including community support) from CentOS.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Bitcoin undermining itself just fine, thank-you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pump and dump is an IPO, massive failures of bitcoin companies, just another shady business practice. Everything old is new again when you don't know history.

  21. UnderMINING Bitcoins? by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    ...and here I thought they where MINING Bitcoins all the time...

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:UnderMINING Bitcoins? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin "mining" stopped when Satoshi's second-in-command moved on to other projects. His last name is Finnish for "ore".

      Nowadays, we call it "verifying transactions" as it should have been from the very beginning. It's not about being a greedy gold-digger, it's about maintaining a network to provide a service, and it's a job like any other, with a reasonable pay.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:UnderMINING Bitcoins? by MindPrison · · Score: 1

      Didn't know that, thanks!

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    3. Re:UnderMINING Bitcoins? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I was half joking... I don't think the term "mining" has anything to do with Mr. Malmi, it's just a nice coincidence.

      Also, people still talk about "mining", even though it's really about verification / running the network. It's just a nice, compact term, though it can be a little misleading.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  22. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical buttcoin libertard. The free market is awesome and perfect.... until it's not serving my personal benefit, in which case boycott the competition.

  23. Re:how meany people are useing Bitcoin just to pla by dugancent · · Score: 1

    No one, unless they are buying stocks.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  24. Yes and it's been a while by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    From where I stand, I think the proliferation of altcoins have undermined Bitcoin since around december 2012, when the number of altcoins started to multiply at an insane rate. Even Litecoin, the main Bitcoin alternative, has lost more than half its value since then.

  25. I'd worry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine other pump-and-dumps threatening the profits of your pump-and-dump!

  26. Nah, Bitcoin destroyed their credibility when by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    they designed a currency that assumes the world's population is constant.

    1. Re:Nah, Bitcoin destroyed their credibility when by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm going to design a currency that assumes that the total real wealth (like mass and energy) of the Earth is constant, thus implying that exponential economic growth is impossible.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Nah, Bitcoin destroyed their credibility when by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      that assumes that the total real wealth (like mass and energy) of the Earth is constant

      Which is also an entirely wrong assumption :)

      The Earth gains energy from the Sun, and thus mass. It also loses mass via radiation. I'm not sure which direction the net is moving in, but there is no way its constant.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Nah, Bitcoin destroyed their credibility when by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      that assumes that the total real wealth (like mass and energy) of the Earth is constant

      Which is also an entirely wrong assumption :)

      The Earth gains energy from the Sun, and thus mass. It also loses mass via radiation. I'm not sure which direction the net is moving in, but there is no way its constant.

      It's wrong in the sense of "not exactly right", but for these purposes I'd say the mass is practically constant. We're talking over the lifetime of society, not the Solar system. (As a physicist, one thing you learn is the power of approximation -- don't waste too much time on measurements that won't really affect the end result.)

      First of all, let's consider the classical (non-relativistic) mass of Earth. I understand it's increasing due to meteorites etc., basically the same process that made Earth in the first place, but much slower nowadays. I think you can see it's not contributing much to world economy.

      Of course, my main error was in saying that mass would have much to do with economy in the first place. Energy is of course much more important; the flow of low-entropy radiation from the Sun, and the roughly equal higher-entropy radiation into space. This flow isn't changing very much over the lifetime of a society, either.

      Also bear in mind the exponential nature of the so-called economic growth, i.e. doubling every N years. Now if the surface area of Earth (which is what limits both the radiation flux and things like agriculture) were to double every N years, then we could have real economic growth at the same rate. This is why we can basically ignore the _relatively_ small changes in mass and radiation above, as they are dwarfed by any exponential growth over time.

      Of course, we keep improving technology to get more usable energy/food from this limited surface area per year. But the physics does exhibit some hard limits.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  27. Oh Boo Hoo by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    Gosh, some advocates of a competing currency and libertarian fantasy are now cowed by competition? Say it ain’t so!

    I’m rooting for some online cash to become viable, but don’t know if Bitcoin will be it (I suspect not since it has the same liquidity / shock issues as gold standards do) but let’s have a bunch of experiments and see what the market says.

  28. It's developer jelaousy and bussiness envy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said lol.

  29. Bitcoin discredits itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets see what bitcoin has brought us:

    an industry surrounding the mass wasting of electricity.

    assassin for hire websites
    cryptolocker

    these exist basically because bitcoin is designed to cater to them.

    what are the pros?

    anonymity? not really anymore at least not for the law abiding..

  30. Stability is needed by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    The programmers need to design a digital Bretton Woods system and enforce a stable exchange rate. For instance, the value of one eMark could be pegged at one five hundredth of a bitcoin, and the various central banks would be obligated to buy and sell bitcoins and emarks at that rate. That way, a miner wouldn't have to worry about backing the wrong computations.

    1. Re:Stability is needed by sanvila · · Score: 1

      Nobody can enforce the value of anything. At most, central banks have the power to avoid their own money to be overvalued, by using the printing press and selling their own money in the market. But this is just a one-way power that does not work in the opposite direction: If the market decides that your currency is not worth what is worth, you will run out of dollars (or whatever foreign money you have) trying to buy your own currency to "sustain" it before you can convince the market otherwise. As bitcoin does not have a central bank, and more importantly, bitcoin is not a fiat currency that you can make out of thin air, your idea of "buy and sell bitcoins" is fatally flawed.

  31. Here's a dumb question... by gwstuff · · Score: 1

    Why would the market not correct the inflated value of alt currencies, eventually? Aren't heavy fluctuation and scams a feature of immature markets? And doesn't outside interface inhibit correction?

  32. ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does this even mean? Asic proof?

    ASICs (Application-specific integrated circuits) represent specialized hardware specifically designed for a particular task, in this context the ASICs are designed to mine coins. ASICs outperform (both in speed and power consumption) CPUs and GPUs making ASICs far more profitable.

    Coin proof-of-work algorithms have some sort of difficulty setting to control the number of coins being awarded during a time period. The more mining horsepower there is the higher the difficulty goes. This rising difficulty level makes the mining calculations take longer. So as the total capability to do work (all the CPUs+GPUs+ASICs) goes up the difficulty goes up. An individual CPU, GPU or ASIC earns fewer coins per hour as difficulty rises but the total number of coins generated remain roughly constant over time.

    ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs. The motivation is to allow CPUs and GPUs to profitably mine something. The problem is that the things missing from the previous generation of ASICs used to design the ASIC-proof algorithm have been finding their way into newer generation ASICs.

    So the short story is that some alt-coins were partially motivated by CPU/GPU miner that were driven out of bitcoin mining. Newer generations ASICs are now taking over alt-coins and CPU/GPU miners are once again being driven out.

    Those great deals you find on ebay for a used high end GPU. It very well may be a GPU that was over clocked and run just below the point of spontaneous combustion :-) 24/7 mining some coin.

    1. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think you understand what an ASIC is, even though you tried to define it.

      There is no such thing as an 'ASIC proof algorithm' because you simply design the ASIC to handle that situation. Doesn't matter what you put into it, the ASIC gets designed to deal with that problem and does it more efficiently than any generic circuit can. Theres nothing a GPU or GPCPU can do that an ASIC can't. The term 'ASIC' doesn't define a specific type of circuit. GPUs are ASICs who's application is graphics processing, for example. An Intel CPU is an ASIC who's application is general purpose computing!

      If you change the algorithm then you aren't making it 'ASIC proof', you're just making it not work for a specific type of ASIC or making it not work well. Its no different than saying BitCoin is 'ASIC proof' because the routing chips in Cisco routers can't do BitCoin hashes efficiently.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I think you're trying very hard to avoid seeing the point though. The point is to enable regular people to mine coins using their ordinary GPUs, either benevolently to have a democratic currency or as the cynic in me suggests get buy-in from many enough people. After all, an altcoin that only a few with specialized equipment can mine effectively is likely to never get off the ground. Bitcoin was different because it was first and everyone pulled together to create a cryptocurrency. It's very easy to create an algorithm that uses 1% of a shader's features and that makes a custom ASIC orders of magnitude faster. The other extreme is to build an algorithm where all the bits and pieces and functionality that goes into a shader is needed, if you tried building a custom ASIC you would essentially end up with your own GPU. That's the meaning of ASIC proof.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by perpenso · · Score: 1
      I understand what an ASiC is, admittedly I was trying to be simple for a non-technical audience.

      There is no such thing as an 'ASIC proof algorithm' because you simply design the ASIC to handle that situation.

      And that is pretty much what I said earlier:
      "ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs. ... The problem is that the things missing from the previous generation of ASICs used to design the ASIC-proof algorithm have been finding their way into newer generation ASICs."
      What I'm trying to convey is that the designers of ASIC-proof algorithms can only defeat yesterday's ASICs, not tomorrows. And by tomorrow I'm talking months not years. Apologies if I was somehow unclear.

    4. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by Animats · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as an 'ASIC proof algorithm' because you simply design the ASIC to handle that situation.

      This is in theory true, but there are proposed proof-of-work algorithms for which specialized hardware doesn't have a huge edge over general-purpose CPUs. Such algorithms require more memory than the existing hashes, and are designed to be highly sequential, so they don't parallelize easily. At least one altcoin claims to have such an algorithm.

      Any algorithm that requires a significant amount of 64-bit floating point computation and lots of memory, like a big matrix inversion, would be reasonably ASIC-proof, simply because that's a task CPUs are designed to do fast. An ASIC that could invert big matrices would need superscalar FPUs, which makes it as complex and expensive as a CPU with comparable performance.

      So far, nobody seems to have devised a "minable" algorithm based on matrix inversion, but that's a place to look for one.

    5. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      ASIC proof could also mean: it not is profitable to create an ASIC to compete with the large factories building GPUs.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    6. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if you come up with an algorithm for which the most appropriate, specifically-tailored ASIC looks like a CPU? Then everyone already has an ASIC tailored for the algorithm, and no further improvement is possible.

    7. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as an 'ASIC proof algorithm' because you simply design the ASIC to handle that situation.

      Fine, then. ASIC resistant.

      For example litecoin uses scrypt. Scrypt is designed to require a very large amount of memory. Once you go beyond what can be done on chip you're relying on the efficiency and speed of your DDR3 memory controller.

      So you've got Bob's custom memory controller versus AMDs, Intel's or Xilinx's cutsom memory controller. Something tells me you won't win.

      The term 'ASIC' doesn't define a specific type of circuit. GPUs are ASICs who's application is graphics processing, for example. An Intel CPU is an ASIC who's application is general purpose computing!

      Well done, you've expanded an acronym, looked at the words individually and out of context and told a bunch of engineers that ASIC is a useless term. Yeah it's a bit fuzzy but back in the real world, we know what ASICs are and are happy to use them.

      ASIC proof in this context means it is not worth making a purpose designed chip just to mine because it will be very expensive and not significantly better (possibly substantially worse) than some COTS chip.

      Its no different than saying BitCoin is 'ASIC proof' because the routing chips in Cisco routers can't do BitCoin hashes efficiently.

      No, you're pretending to be smart. Stop it, it's not working.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the case of altcoins the ASIC-proofing was to require lots of memory for mining. Fast static RAM for ASICs is expensive so it made the cost of scrypt mining ASICs rather high. CPUs and GPUs have huge amounts of RAM avilable so no problem there.

      Unfortunately the cost of ASICs with enough RAM to mine scrypt coins is now low enough for enthusiast/chump miners to afford. It didn't take nearly as long as some people expected. Scrypt only needs in the order of megabytes. If it was a gigabyte or two then dynamic RAM would be the only option, and ASICs would be no faster than GPUs as both would be limited by memory access times.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      There's been consideration of self-mutating algorithms where the hash of the previous block determines the problem to be solved for the next, functionally making CPU/GPU hardware the most efficient way of solving it (because you have to be generic). That's a damned difficult research question, though, not something we have a ready to go answer for.

    10. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      You would only need the computational part of the GPU, anything video output related could be ditched. So you can pack thing more densely on the ASIC. Now the ASIC chip without all the video stuff gets packed more densely onto a blade. The blades get packaged into a box with a controller and cooling. Dozens of these boxes need nothing more than a low power raspberry pi to control them.

      I don't think a PC motherboard hosting a few video cards can compete, work/power. I think "not being worth it" has more to do with the nature of the coin than with mining.

    11. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      ASIC proof could also mean: it not is profitable to create an ASIC to compete with the large factories building GPUs.

      Some BTC ASICs are using a 28nm process. I think they are able to buy some time at real fabs.

    12. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by PanchoVilla · · Score: 1

      There are two common ways to make them "ASIC resistant" A CPU can do a lot of things while the mining ASIC's are focused on just the one calculation. So the two common ways are. The asic has an advantage because it will be far far smaller than a full CPU or GPU since it only contains the bare minimum logic to do the calculation. The first way is to require huge amounts of memory to do the calculation. You can't fake out the memory, you just need it on the die. This reduces the size that can be saved by creating a custom ASIC. An interesting twist on this is there are some coins now with an increasing memory requirement. Ie, right now it might require 500 meg memory but each time the difficulty hits certain points the memory requirement of the calculation doubles. So now not only does the ASIC have to be larger, eventually it will be unable to do the calculation unless it keeps memory of modern GPU's. Second one is to make the algorithm harder. Bitcoin is so susceptible since SHA-256 is a single calculation. There are coins out there now with 11 or 13 or even 15 different calclations required for a single block. Now you have to design an ASIC that can solve 15 different algorithms and maybe even has the memory requirements above. Now the ASIC is far harder to design and once you do design it the performance gains are far less than the were. I think for bitcoin the hash/watt increase by ASIC's was something like 100x better. (speculation, I think i read that) Then the Scrypt ASIC's was much lower. On the order of 10-20x. X11 and beyond algorithms would be even lower. And then the ASIC's have to overcome the inherent disadvantage of process. Ie, none of the ASIC designers are paying the enormous costs involved in trying to get their chips onto bleeding edge processes. I think the best ones are at 28nm in the near future, while most of the fabs are currently working on processes in the 14-20nm range and those cost far more money and may not make sense at the volumes they build their ASIC's. Ie, 100,000 chips not 10 million of chips. Of course there are literally hundreds of altcoins now and the pump n dump has really hit credibility. Some of the ones I mine have lost 60% of their value recently. I just do it on a small scale for the learning though. I probably barely pay for the power I use.

    13. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      The thing that makes me skeptical about ASIC-proof algorithms is that the computational part of a GPU could be put into an ASIC but anything related to video output could be discarded. I would expect better densities and more chips on a blade. Then some number of blades go into a box with a controller and cooling. A low power raspberry pi could service dozens of such boxes. I have a hard time seeing how a PC motherboard with a few high end video cards can compete on a hash/watt basis.

      Even if ASIC development halts miner manufactures might use actual ATI/NVidia GPUs on their blades. Pack them in a little denser than you could on a video card. It would probably still beat a PC motherboard with video cards.

      If external RAM becomes a necessity it could go on blade. We're a little bit closer to a video card now but without video output we probably have a density and profitability edge. Production runs of the blades may be relatively low volume, but aren't the specific high end video cards that miners want also relatively low volume? The GPU chips themselves may be high volume but a particular make and model of a video card is not.

      I think one of the 28nm ASIC designers said they will do about 80x better than a GPU. Certainly this will fall if ASICs have to replicate full GPU computational abilities, fall more if external RAM is needed, fall more if actual ATI/Nvidia GPU chips need to go on dedicated mining blades. But I tend to think dedicated mining hardware will always have an appreciable advantage over repurposed PC gear. I think the days of building a special headless mining rig with a PC motherboard and three or four video cards are over. Its going to be boxes with hardware specifically made for mining, at least for mining enthusiasts.

      Now for non-mining enthusiasts, for a gamer that wants to do a little mining when the computer would otherwise be idle, we'll still see GPU mining there.

    14. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What's the advantage in being ASIC-proof? Doesn't that just mean the necessarily calculations are more inefficient? Right now, Bitcoin isn't worth mining on a CPUs and GPUs (unless you're running a botnet and don't have to pay for the power). Doesn't that mean that, if Bitcoin were ASIC-proof, transactions would have to rely on transaction fees rather than miners? That it would put more CO2 into the air for each transaction?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Is there ever going to be a stable situation where random individuals can make money mining *coin? That would seem to imply that the resulting *coin were more expensive than the power and the depreciation on the computer. That would seem to imply that the *coin were incredibly valuable, since it would be worth buying hundreds of computers and running them flat-out to mine them, but wouldn't the value come down eventually? Would we want to have a *coin that justified all that power consumption and CO2 creation?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:ASICs drive out CPUs and GPUs ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      What's the advantage in being ASIC-proof?/quote> The realistic answer is that GPU miners are angry that they have been driven out and want a new place to mine.

      The theoretical answer is that ASIC based mining tends to be done on an industrial scale, more medium to larger scale ASiC farms controlled by a small number of groups, less individuals using their computer's idle time and hobbyists with small farms. Many argue that a coin is healthier and safer when its blockchain, which is generated by mining, is created by a large number of decentralized individuals and hobbyists rather than a small number of groups most likely interested in commercial mining and/or speculation.

      At least that's how it was until very recently. Powerful ASICs designed for hobbyists are now available, so hopefully we will see a little more decentralization among ASIC users. The hobbyists who would a year ago build a headless mining rig with a PC motherboard and three or four video cards will probably just buy an ASIC today.

  33. Thank you, Captain Obvious by EmagGeek · · Score: 2
    "The editor of a Bitcoin advocacy site believes the proliferation of altcoins (cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin) is harming Bitcoin"

    Gee, you don't say?

  34. Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly Bitcoin has enough credibility for people to value it at hundreds of dollars ...

    But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.

    Merchants tend to use merchant services offered by various bitcoin exchanges. Basically the merchant does all their pricing and accounting as normal in whatever fiat currency they use, dollars, euros, etc. When a customer indicates they wish to pay in bitcoins the merchant sends sale info to the exchange, the exchange converts the price from fiat to bitcoin and provides a payment address to send bitcoins to. This payment address is the exchange's, the merchant never touches a bitcoin -- lucky for them if they are subject to IRS jurisdiction but that's another story. When the merchant receives the coins they credit the merchant's account with the original fiat amount specified regardless of any particular fluctuation that may have occurred in bitcoin's price.

    In short. The merchant prices and does accounting in fiat currency and receives fiat currency in payment. The only thing new is that their payment processor is a bitcoin exchange rather than VISA or Mastercard.

    1. Re:Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.

      I think you're confusing credibility with volatility because their business is making a profit on margins, not playing with currency speculation. Most of the value flows through them as they buy from suppliers and sell to customers, even a relatively small change in value can wipe out their margins. I'm assuming that when I buy something in another country with my VISA then 99.99%+ of the time the store is paid in its local currency, not my currency.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another huge value in accepting bitcoins. You don't have to worry about charge-backs. Charge-backs eat into profits. We lost a number of laptops last year. This year we're changing things up a bit and thats making it more difficult for consumers. Bitcoins on the other hand are easier than ever to use. You'll never have to authenticate with us if you use bitcoins, because the bitcoins don't come with the risk of a charge-back.

    3. Re:Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.

      I think you're confusing credibility with volatility because their business is making a profit on margins, not playing with currency speculation.

      The merchants that are selling thing to customers, they are not playing volatility. They are completely avoiding volatility by using a system that pays them the exact dollar (or whatever fiat currency) amount they expect from a customer paying in dollars. These merchants who accept bitcoins from customers have no faith in bitcoins. And thanks to exchanges the merchants accepting bitcoins need no faith at all in bitcoins.

    4. Re: Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by Calavar · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. If Macy's sells a shirt for 50 USD and decides to keep those 50 USD in the bank, are they "speculating on the value of the dollar." Technically yes, but that certainly isn't how Macy's is thinking about it. The USD is is stable enough that holding onto USD is not considered speculation or investment. It is considered saving. That's what it means to be a currency. Until Bitcoin can also act as a medium of savings rather than a medium of speculation and investment, it will not truly be a currency.

    5. Re: Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by Calavar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, replied to the wrong person.

    6. Re:Not credible enough for merchant's to hold ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Another problem with using Bitcoins to buy things with: no charge-backs. If the vendor screws you in any way, there's no recourse. If I use a credit card, I've got some protection. If I write a check, at least the money is going into a partly traceable system, although that's of very limited use. If I use Bitcoin, I'm SOL.

      Usually, when I make an on-line transaction, I confirm payment and then receive something, either to be downloaded or physically shipped to me. I don't always deal with reputable large companies; one of the really neat things about the net is that I can deal with numerous small companies I'd never have heard of without it. I doubt that all of them are trustworthy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  35. Do people confuse them? by MoonlessNights · · Score: 1

    I would assume that credibility pollution is not much of an issue since I don't think people confuse all cryptocurrencies as being "Bitcoin". However, I have no actual data so maybe they do. I would assume that the users of these more exotic currencies are a smaller group who know that these are all different.

    The bigger concerns I have with these is that they seem rather redundant.

    Also, does anyone _actually_ view Bitcoin as "an alternative to fiat currencies and central banks" or more as "a real solution to the problem kludged by PayPal"?

    1. Re:Do people confuse them? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      If you think PayPal is the cause of the problem, you haven't looked close enough.

      The whole system is a total mess.

      First of all there are, far and far to many regulations and a lot of countries has some of their own unique regulations as well.

      The second problem is: SWIFT is from the 70s it's a rigid protocol that isn't going to change any time soon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It usually takes days before a transaction is confirmed. Bitcoin takes about 10 minutes, a lot altcoins take minutes.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  36. Wha? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Since when does Bitcoin have any credibility to be undermined?

  37. ASIC will always exist... by DrYak · · Score: 2

    ...but not necessarily have huge advantage.

    ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs. {...} Newer generations ASICs are now taking over alt-coins and CPU/GPU miners are once again being driven out.

    You can build an ASIC for pretty much anything, and beyond some point, it might be commercially reasonnable to attempt it (if the market is big enough and there are enough people interested into buying hardware, it might be worth trying to design sellable hardware).

    Now the question is: is there an actual gain in doing it? And that's where all the details lie in.
    Depending on the complexity of the Proof-of-Work algorithm, it might range from
    - PoW is dumb easy. Each jump in technology (CPU, GPU, FPGA, ASIC) result in massive increase in performance. Hashing power jumps forward several orders of magnitude. Each new technology simply obliterates the relevance of the previous generation (that's the case with bitcoins' SHA256 algorithme).
    all the way to the opposite:
    - PoW is awfully complex. The algorithme has so much requirement, that your ASIC basically ends up being a slightly custom CPU. The only real benefit compared to GPU, is that the ASIC consumes a tiny bit less power when compared to a GPU.

    Also, keep in mind that some PoW actually solve real-life scientific problems. If somebody managed to create ASIC hardware for PrimeCoin or RieCoin, there's some publication-worth fame to be made.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:ASIC will always exist... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      The power difference between ASIC and GPU is not "a tiny bit", especially so for the alt-coins that were theoretically ASIC-resistant. ASICs are a huge win on power consumption.

  38. Bitcoin can also suffer from inflation by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    Are you talking about Bitcoin's deflationary tendencies? Bitcoin deflation assumes one thing, that people will continue to want Bitcoin, a "commodity" designed to be limited in supply. In other words, for the value of Bitcoin to rise people must remain INTERESTED in Bitcoin. If interest in Bitcoin falls, then the value of Bitcoin also falls, which just a roundabout way of saying "inflation".

    I suspect the lack of positive or negative news about Bitcoin is contributing to the current downward trend of its value relative to the dollar.

  39. [tag satire] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So its Facebook compliant. Because no one really uses illegal porn/drugs/money launder coin do they?

    1. Re:[tag satire] by pla · · Score: 1

      So its Facebook compliant. Because no one really uses illegal porn/drugs/money launder coin do they?

      Hate to break it to you, but the good ol' US Dollar, cash-in-hand, remains the worldwide go-to currency for laundering money.

      BitCoin makes international transactions easier, no question there; but as far as its reputation for illegal activities goes, outside the opportunistic Silk Road, it actually has significantly more traceability than a stack of Jacksons.

      If you want to launder on a purely domestic scale, you want nothing to do with Bitcoin. Yes, if careful you have a certain type of anonymity once in the system; but the weak points comes from the buy-in and cash-out. Unless you "launder" your money by buying mining rigs, and don't mind cashing out by buying things at Tiger or OverStock, moving large sums around in the blockchain just gives the feds a blinking neon sign for where to look for you.

    2. Re:[tag satire] by satuon · · Score: 1

      I remember some ransomware called Cryptolocker demanded payment in Bitcoins.

  40. What credibility? by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

    Impossible. That would imply that Bitcoin had credibility to begin with.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  41. Alt-coins no longer matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alt-coins no longer matter. Look at the profitability charts. You're losing money by mining any alt coin at all even with highly efficient ASIC's. The market is gone.

  42. BitCoin has a problem by pla · · Score: 1

    I say this as an avid supporter: BitCoin has a serious problem, at least as far as its "distributed" nature goes.

    As it has grown in populatity, the motivation for the average Joe to participate in block creation has vanished. Personally, I used to mine one or two BTC per month; first on my CPU, then on my GPU; today, it would literally take me about four years on a high-end GPU to mine a single BitCoin - Why bother? Today, only a handful of hardcore dedicated ASIC-based miners control new block creation. And make no mistake, I don't hate on them for doing so, they serve a valuable purpose for the BitCoin economy as a whole (no new blocks means no transactions processed).

    Altcoins serve as a sort of "American Dream" for those who missed out on the gold rush. People see others who made a small (or in some cases, not so small) fortune mining BTC, and want to put their otherwise-idle PC power to use doing something similar. Hard to blame them, but at the same time, the activity itself very much counts as speculating with an "investment" funded through their electric bills - Not healthy for either cryptocurrencies as a whole, or for the individuals hoping to get in on the next LiteCoin.

    I consider this the "awkward" years for BitCoin growth. Once it becomes infeasible to make serious money mining BTC, the huge mining farms will vanish, the difficulty will drop, and eventually people will go back to casually mining in the background on their GPUs just for the transaction fees if not the block rewards. For now, though, only those willing to drop tens of thousands of dollars on a mining rig can participate in that half of the economy.

    1. Re:BitCoin has a problem by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If the big ASIC farms vanish, it will be because they aren't worth the electricity needed (the ASICs are a sunk cost). That means it really, really won't be worth mining on your GPU. Then, since nobody mines (i.e., verifies transactions), Bitcoin collapses. Realistically, the ASIC farms will be around until people get tired of paying the transaction fees.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  43. perception switch by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    This is /. please fall in line troll

    so now a BTC thread has a majority of anti-BTC comments, esp AC's...I'm wondering what caused this change...or if it's always been viewed with skepticism but hype warped our perception

    i'm telling you, ever since we started seeing BTC on /., and especially after it got big, i tried to provide a counterpoint to the BTC proponents...got modded troll every time

    i was cool about it, not trollface...especially not at first, maybe after a months I'd get aggro in a deepthread but really i went out of my way to be fair minded

    got hammered by the mods!

    now the AC's are some of the most hilarious anti-BTC comments (someone above asked for a BTC to Pog to Beanie Baby conversion table)

    i don't know what this all means...I know htere are paid commentors and hype/fanbois but i'm just wondering if people have come to their senses about BTC or if it's always been this way and the hype/comment bots warped our perception

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  44. Come again ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... especially so for the alt-coins that were theoretically ASIC-resistant ...

    I have heard so much about the so-called "ASIC-resistant" alt-coins but have yet to meet one yet

    Can you kindly tell us which alt-coin(s) is/are truly ASIC-resistant ??

    Thanks !!

    1. Re:Come again ?? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      ... especially so for the alt-coins that were theoretically ASIC-resistant ...

      I have heard so much about the so-called "ASIC-resistant" alt-coins but have yet to meet one yet Can you kindly tell us which alt-coin(s) is/are truly ASIC-resistant ?? Thanks !!

      Note my use of "were theoretically". The scrypt algorithm, which many current alt-coins are based on was chosen back in the day because the coin dev teams thought it ASIC resistant. However it was only theoretically resistant and that did not match reality. As I indicated before, it was designed to do things that the sha256 based ASICs (Bitcoin) could not, however when alt-coins became profitable enough ASICs were designed for scrypt.

      This cycle will repeat. Even if some algorithm were found that uses every bit of a GPU's computational power an ASIC would be developed that had only the computational circuits, ditched the graphics output circuits, packed those circuits in a custom chip, packaged them in a unit by the hundreds with a controller and cooling and only needed a low power devices like a raspberry pi to control dozens of such units. The preceding would beat a PC motherboard hosting as many video cards as can fit.

  45. The easiest way is to not participate. by Chas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why don't we apply this to ALL craptocurrency?

    It's a waste of time, computing power, energy and programming time needed to alter payment backends for this e-funny-money.

    If nobody participates, they all collapse like the speculating-their-asses-off house of cards that they are.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:The easiest way is to not participate. by Lennie · · Score: 1

      The reason start up and VC-investors put money into Bitcoin is because the blockchain is actually a novel and useful technology.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  46. Deflation by quantaman · · Score: 1

    One reason I'm rooting for an Altcoin is I'm worried about deflation if Bitcoin wins.

    A limited amount of inflation is a good thing, if the cash sitting in your wallet gets progressively less valuable you have a motive to spend it and generate economic activity.

    But there's a finite amount bitcoins, which means at some point they'll all be mined. At that point as the economy grows each bitcoin will represent an ever larger portion of the economy. People will be reluctant to spend bitcoin because they'll be forgoing those future price increases and the economy will suffer.

    I'm not sure how well any Altcoins solve this problem, but I'd prefer a currency where the money supply grows in pace with the economy.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  47. What? Bitcoin has credibility, now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Someone give me a glass of water, that's a good one!

  48. How naive by RWerp · · Score: 1

    "The financial sector will lose it's grip pretty quickly on all this."

    This is very funny given that Bitcoin is currently being integrated into the "official" financial system as another commodity or currency (depending on the jurisdiction).
    The financial sector is *taking over* Bitcoin as we speak.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  49. PrimeCoin & RieCoin by DrYak · · Score: 2

    PrimeCoin and RieCoin currently have no known FPGA nor ASIC implementation and the few GPU implementation don't seem to bring the huge leaps in performance that GPU brought to Bitcoin's SHA256.

    It's not that they were designed with the purpose of being CPU-only (ASIC-resistant was never the main foal in creating them).
    It's that they are based around actual scientific problems that ARE difficult. Designing silicon for them *would* be a scientific improvement.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  50. Related headline... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Are Multi-level-marketing schemes undermining the credibility of Ponzi schemes?

  51. Altcoins serve a purpose. by Blankie · · Score: 1

    In the long term, I suspect that a vast number of alternative cryptocurrencies will be created. This churn of new cryptocurrencies will produce quite a few duds, scams and fads, but at some point the idea of creating a cryptocurrency won't be as cutting edge as it is now. Then the churn will slow, and we'll be left with a handful of serious currencies, each of which has a unique use or attraction that makes it viable in the market. We need more than one cryptocurrency so that people have a choice. If there are several currencies, then the competition will spur innovation, the value of each currency can stabilize against the others somewhat and no single market crash or overlooked security concern will bring down all of them. Urging people to boycott alternative cryptocurrencies and use only Bitcoin is shortsighted and harmful.

  52. talk about hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin is free market, do what you want, no gov't or regulation...but as soon as competition occurs, they want a monopoly
    sheesh, how can they complain with a straight face ?

    1. Re:talk about hypocrisy by kuzb · · Score: 1

      it's not regulated until it's regulated. That regulation is coming, and you can't escape it.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  53. Just say no. by kuzb · · Score: 1

    If you all haven't learned by now that shitcoin and all the garbage like it has got serious issues you deserve everything coming your way.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  54. Payments can disappear, double, ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    There is another huge value in accepting bitcoins. You don't have to worry about charge-backs.

    Unless the blockchain forks again. Admittedly that would only occur in drastic circumstances and those effected confined to a very narrow time window. However the risk is not zero, but it is very very low. In 2013 a coding bug in the BTC mining software -- this is where the blockchain, the public ledger we all use, comes from -- necessitating a fork. Assuming no disappearing payments, no double spends, would require no future coding bugs by the BTC dev team.

  55. Keep your Monopoly money by Drunkulus · · Score: 1

    I wager 200 quatloos on the newcomer.

  56. Re:how meany people are useing Bitcoin just to pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "playing the market like stocks" is what drives all of the largest economies in the world.

    how many people are using Bitcoin just to participate in the largest economies in the world?

  57. The easiest way is to not participate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cryptocoin represents the best and worst of humanity in a microcosm.

    On one hand, it has seemingly higher noble purposes -- to separate people from the "fiat currency" of governments, to reduce costs of transactions, and provide true anonymity. But as an instrument of speculation, it is like crack cocaine in Vegas. It is attracting the attention of all the wrong people. Mafia types, drug lords, hackers, scammers, pump and dump artists just for starters.

    The essential flaw in a cryptocurrency system is as simple as it is impossible to fix: Human beings. Human beings, by their essential evolutionary nature, are creatures that have survived and conquered the world because they have exploited and broken every system that has ever existed. The continual hacking of cryptocurrency systems is inevitable. It cannot and will not ever by completely safe. It may get safer over time, but there are no guarantees.

    Just because it seems like a good idea doesn't mean it ever will be.

  58. it will not work that way by allo · · Score: 1

    sounds like he has a lot of bitcoins, so he wants to preserve their status.

    Altcoins are having success, even parody ones. Why? Because *coins are a ponzi scheme. Who comes first, gets more for less.
    Yeah, creators ARE premining. But nevertheless, the first users can do cheap mining as well, paid by the users who are joining later. Because of this effect you cannot tell people to boycott altcoins, when they have the opportunity to make a lot more money there than with bitcoin.

    So maybe there will not be mined more and more bitcoins, but for every coin-currency which is "used up", there will come a successor, which can be mined from start. So its a meta-coin, which does not work by hashing more and more transactions, but by creating new currencies, which will replace the old ones.

  59. BarbaraHudson: Step inside & backup your b.s. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage

    Then why'd you run from disproving my points that give users added speed, security, reliability & more here this week where YOU started up your usual b.s. with me, then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    ---

    "and one way to monetize your hosts file is to put a few bogus entries in that go to bogus "monetizing" sites" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage

    I don't "monetize it": I give it away so folks have more speed, security, reliability & more for FREE - it's the right thing to do. I have the ability to do so & it's better than ANY single competitor by far, doing more with less.

    (ALL I let users add is their favorite sites (for speed, & reliability) + to import known bad sites or adbanners (for safety & speed) blocking entries from 12 reputable sources in the security community - & users control it, not I!)

    ---

    "Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage

    The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... who also host my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    The best in the business recommend it as "best of breed" @ the TOP of that last link's page (MalwareBytes' hpHosts page).

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "After all, you post anonymously" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage

    Better than having multiple sockpuppet accounts like you for upmodding yourself & downmodding those you can't get the best of:

    http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2...
    http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson...

    Which YOU have used to spread falsehoods like where you attempt to libel me & harm my professional programming career http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ... apk