Bitcoin 'Miners' Face Fight For Survival As New Supply Halves (reuters.com)

Other motivations by stikves · 2016-07-08 22:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

With smaller players dropping out of the game, soon it might become a "single player" game after all. If this scenario happens, then a single entity controlling 51% of the keychain nodes can potentially disrupt the entire BitCoin economy by effectively "rewriting history".

I'm not sure this is a good thing. Every advancement seemed to have moved the needle to this direction. While everyone was able to run CPU miners is was very democratic. Then GPUs came, but still people could drop in a few hundred, and continue. After FGPA, and the ASICs, it's not just very large firms, where smaller people can only "rent" nodes, and hope they can trust the infrastructure.

We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.

Re:Other motivations by TeknoHog · 2016-07-08 22:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
Many if not most altcoins started because they wanted to avoid the ASIC path, by choosing more elaborate hash functions. Of course, it's always possible to design ASICs for these too, even if they end up looking like special versions of GPUs. Besides hash functions, many altcoins have other interesting features that might end up in Bitcoin some day.
However, it's easier to start using the altcoins themselves than hard fork Bitcoin. With cryptocurrencies and automated exchanges, there's less need for everyone to stick with the same coin.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:Other motivations by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-08 22:39 · Score: 1

We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
The ASIC is essentially just an CPU, hard coded & optimized to run just one program.
So, periodically change the algorithm to offset the large NRE-costs of ASIC design/manufacturing?
Re:Other motivations by AK+Marc · 2016-07-08 23:12 · Score: 1

Also, Bitcoin, as it sits, is environmentally abusive. Increasing processing demands, higher costs, more energy wasted to make more coins and process transactions. Between that and the problem of a single entity winning a blockchain war, Bitcoin can never sustain. Better would be to re-write it with low processing for "minting" new coins, and centralize the creation of coins. Whether a government does this, or an independent non-profit company would depend on which governments, if any, would be interested. I suspect few governments would be interested.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re: Other motivations by Entrope · 2016-07-08 23:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

No reasonable person wants to carry a dozen wallets to conduct commerce, even if they're of the cryptocurrency variety. There are huge network effects for having a de facto standard (crypto)currency in an area.
Re:Other motivations by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-07-08 23:24 · Score: 1

Even among people who can afford hardware, there is a lot of effective consolidation because of 'pools'. These aren't irrational behavior: if you have a small amount of hashing capacity going it alone might pay off handsomely but will probably pay nothing, while pooling more or less guarantees a return proportional to your hashing capacity; but also leaves you largely at the mercy of the infrastructure.
Re:Other motivations by fph+il+quozientatore · 2016-07-08 23:30 · Score: 1

Honest question from someone who only knows the basics: how do you trade bitcoins without miners around? I thought the transactions had to be embedded in the blockchain.

--
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Re:Other motivations by cryptizard · 2016-07-08 23:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Every Bitcoin transaction has an optional "transaction fee" that you can include as an incentive to miners to include your transaction in the block chain. The idea is that eventually miners will make their money not from the block rewards but from transaction fees.
Re:Other motivations by cryptizard · 2016-07-08 23:52 · Score: 2

That is why Bitcoin includes transaction fees. As the block rewards get lower, transaction fees will become a larger part of the incentive for miners to keep mining. Eventually there will be no new bitcoins, at which point 100% of the money from mining will come from transaction fees.
Re:Other motivations by CaptainDork · 2016-07-09 00:30 · Score: 1

The mining will take a familiar pattern as resources become scarce and the artificial value of the precious stone rises. Capitalists will exploit human labourers running slave computers and we will all be using the term, "blood coins."
Then as global economies switch to organic foods and free range farm animals along with organic produce, BTC will be labeled, "conflict free coins."
Those who know history are bound to predict it.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Re:Other motivations by mysidia · 2016-07-09 00:42 · Score: 1

We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
You would need most of the Bitcoin users to agree.
I think you're talking about a hard fork here, because miners with an existing investment in ASICs are not going to support this.
Therefore, you need a new community of miners (with no ASICs), and the rest of the public choosing the new fork and abandoning the fork supported by the current crop of miners.
Re:Other motivations by sphealey · 2016-07-09 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
sPh
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 01:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

With smaller players dropping out of the game, soon it might become a "single player" game after all.
Be aware there are also strong forces occuring that are pushing the decentralization of mining right now. Most principly hitting Moore's cliff with ASIC manufacturing will insure that newer generation ASICs only are slightly better than older generation ASICs.

can potentially disrupt the entire BitCoin economy by effectively "rewriting history".
This isn't true and not the consequences of a 51% attack. History cannot be re-written by a 51% attack as the amount of energy needed to ourun the longest chain with the most proof of work going several confirmations back is insurmountable. This is typically why the historical record of bitcoin txs are referred to as "immutable" . A 51% attack could potentially create double spends or prevent txs occurring in the present, not several confirmations past.

We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
This is of course possible and the code has already been written in the event of an unlikely attack from miners. This is unlikely to be needed however because there are both forces that drive centralization of mining and forces that drive decentralization of mining and a more likely outcome in the future is a mix of p2pool mining with some large industrial locations.
Re:Other motivations by khallow · 2016-07-09 01:50 · Score: 1

Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
I take it you think there's something wrong with Bitcoins from the macroeconomics point of view?
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 01:53 · Score: 1

Also, Bitcoin, as it sits, is environmentally abusive. Increasing processing demands, higher costs, more energy wasted to make more coins and process transactions. Between that and the problem of a single entity winning a blockchain war, Bitcoin can never sustain. Better would be to re-write it with low processing for "minting" new coins, and centralize the creation of coins.

A centralized minting process would undermine the whole raison d'être of bitcoin, thus will never happen. While your fears are somewhat correct, they are outdated. In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production. Thus if bitcoin every did go mainstream than the electrical costs to mint such bitcoins would also similarly skyrocket .
Thus in the past there were 2 types of bitcoin txs: Onchain (real bitcoin txs , which are resource costly and limited and offchain txs, which are cheap, free to send, and unlimited but rely on a trusted third party thus not really bitcoin). Now with some new protocol developments (mutisig,CSV, CLTV, ect..) there are other options that allow bitcoin to scale where "layer 2" payment channels that are onchain and secure can occur that will allow bitcoin to scale to over 100k txs per second. The costs of minting will thus not need to exponentially increase(remember, bitcoin is disinflationary and in a few hours the electricity spent to secure the network will drop from ~1.6 million per day to around 820k a day USD) while the security and txs capacity increase under such a scenario.
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:01 · Score: 1

Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
sPh
From reading Satoshi Nakamoto writings it was clear that he had an extensive background in many schools of economics. You may disagree with Hayek and the Austrian school of economics, which is fine, but it is highly misleading to suggest that someone who doesn't agree with Keyenes isn't familiar with their economic hypotheses.
Re:Other motivations by Khyber · 2016-07-09 02:17 · Score: 1

" there are other options that allow bitcoin to scale where "layer 2" payment channels that are onchain and secure can occur that will allow bitcoin to scale to over 100k txs per second"
That's pretty fucking slow, actually. Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:29 · Score: 2

" there are other options that allow bitcoin to scale where "layer 2" payment channels that are onchain and secure can occur that will allow bitcoin to scale to over 100k txs per second"
That's pretty fucking slow, actually. Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.
Visa averages around 2k tps (transactions per second) with daily peak rates of 4k tps , and a capacity of 56k tps. I like your optimism however , as you are probably suggesting that bitcoin needs much higher throughput than Visa for AI and machine to machine txs which I would agree. Don't worry, as the Lightning network will eventually be able to handle your demands - https://lightning.network/
Re:Other motivations by sphealey · 2016-07-09 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

An inherently deflationary currency in a world that has experienced 300 years of continuous economic and population growth - what could possibly go wrong?
sPh
Re:Other motivations by cryptizard · 2016-07-09 02:31 · Score: 1

Sounds very much like the internet and advertising - and we all see how well that's working out.
That is a complete non-sequitur. What are you talking about? It is almost exactly like other financial institutions, credit cards, etc. Every time you transfer money you pay a small fee to compensate the miners who make the whole thing work.
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:35 · Score: 1

An inherently deflationary currency in a world that has experienced 300 years of continuous economic and population growth - what could possibly go wrong?
sPh
Bitcoin is Disinflationary from a production standpoint not deflationary. Whether bitcoin is deflationary or inflationary within the economy is simply a matter of supply and demand. If you are suggesting concerns with usability due to scarcity than have no fear as bitcoin can be divided by 8 decimal places and therefore even if each one is valued over 1 million a piece there will be plenty for everyone to use. Additionally, within layer 2 you can get even higher fractions of satoshis for more decimalization. Please clarify exactly the problem you are insinuating.
Re:Other motivations by Megol · 2016-07-09 02:35 · Score: 2

I think he meant that ASIC miners are hardwired computers which they are.
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:48 · Score: 1

Even among people who can afford hardware, there is a lot of effective consolidation because of 'pools'. These aren't irrational behavior: if you have a small amount of hashing capacity going it alone might pay off handsomely but will probably pay nothing, while pooling more or less guarantees a return proportional to your hashing capacity; but also leaves you largely at the mercy of the infrastructure.
While there are some valid concerns over pool mining centralization this is widely overblown concern due to 2 reasons. First is the fact that p2pool is only around 1% more inefficient than mining at the largest pool and removes these risks you suggest and there are many active members mining there and growing. Secondly it is trivial to point your hash rate at another pool and most miners automate this for uptime and other concerns.
Re:Other motivations by AchilleTalon · 2016-07-09 03:52 · Score: 2

The point is: Which system is having the best features, lowest energy footprint per transaction? BitCoin is having a positive cost per transaction curve while banking systems are having a negative one. Forget about moving gold bars, no one is really doing this on large scale. The bank notes transport is limited to feeding ATM mostly where already existing electronic bank transactions can fill that gap.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
Re:Other motivations by AchilleTalon · 2016-07-09 03:55 · Score: 1

Decentralized? This article is just about the reverse. Splitting the Bitcoin bounty to share by half will help to create a monopoly eliminating small players from the game.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
Re:Other motivations by AchilleTalon · 2016-07-09 04:05 · Score: 1

So, if it is exactly like other financial institutions, credit cards, electronic fund transfers, etc. The market for the bitcoin will summarize to perform transactions at a lower cost than any other financial institution, etc. I still don't see the world moving in the direction of the bitcoin. The advantage is too tiny.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
Re:Other motivations by Solandri · 2016-07-09 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure this is a good thing. Every advancement seemed to have moved the needle to this direction. While everyone was able to run CPU miners is was very democratic. Then GPUs came, but still people could drop in a few hundred, and continue. After FGPA, and the ASICs, it's not just very large firms, where smaller people can only "rent" nodes, and hope they can trust the infrastructure.
Which causes deflation (need less of the currency to buy the same thing - in other words the currency's value goes up). Which is the whole reason countries moved off the gold standard. The rate at which new gold was being mined was not keeping pace with the rate at which the economy was expanding (population and productivity increases), causing deflation, which destabilized the economy (you could "make" more money by stuffing it under a mattress, than by using it to do something economically productive).

We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
Which is exactly what governments do with a fiat currency - adjust the availability of the currency to stabilize and moderate its value, to maintain a slight inflation rate.

And we've come full circle. The folks who rejected fiat currencies and advocated bitcoin have learned the lesson governments learned with gold eighty years ago, and are advocating changes to make it behave more like a fiat currency.
Re:Other motivations by Fwipp · 2016-07-09 04:12 · Score: 1

Deflation increases the wealth of the people holding the currency. In Bitcoin's case, an intentionally disinflationary currency was coupled to a ponzi scheme - the hope was that demand rises high enough for early adopters to make bank (which it did).
Bitcoin has always been expressly designed to favor the people who got bitcoins early. And it was just obvious enough to recruit people who thought themselves early.
Asking people to adopt it worldwide is like Parker Bros saying "We're gonna make Monopoly Money into a valid international currency. Yes, we are the only ones who have Monopoly Money in meaningful quantities. No, we won't be printing hardly any more, we want to protect our investment. It's actually nearly impossible to print it, we engineered it that way. If you want some, you have to give me something in return. But look how pretty it is!"
Re:Other motivations by dak664 · 2016-07-09 04:14 · Score: 1

This was obvious at the outset, the profits from mining would diminish and increasing fees would be needed to pay for the energy cost of each transaction. As i recall there was some handwaving about this being an academic consideration only.
Re:Other motivations by DanielRavenNest · 2016-07-09 04:42 · Score: 1

> Bitcoin has always been expressly designed to favor the people who got bitcoins early.
And start-ups favor the founders and early investors, so what's your point?
For the first 18 months bitcoins were worth *zero*, they were merely an interesting experiment. There was no guarantee they would ever be worth anything in real terms. Then someone bought two pizzas for 10,000 BTC, establishing a value of 0.4 cents/BTC, meaning the mining reward at the time was 20 cents. Given that there were perhaps 100 people mining at the time, the average reward was 1.2 cents an hour, hardly a get rich quick scheme.
Re:Other motivations by DanielRavenNest · 2016-07-09 04:54 · Score: 2

> (you could "make" more money by stuffing it under a mattress, than by using it to do something economically productive).
That's only true if the rate of deflation was greater than the nominal rate of return on other investments. Stock earnings, as measured by the S&P 500 have grown at an average of 6.6% over the last 55 years, plus paid out a few percent in cash dividends on top of that. If the dividends were re-invested, then total earnings would grow around 8.8%. If your money were deflating at 2% you would be far better off with stocks.
Re:Other motivations by thegarbz · 2016-07-09 06:29 · Score: 1

Miners making commercial profit by using an optional fee for a service which has as a big selling point that some commercial entity isn't profiting by charging fees?
Re:Other motivations by cryptizard · 2016-07-09 06:53 · Score: 1

That has never been a selling point. Transaction fees have been built in from the start. The selling point is that no central authority has control over the currency or transactions.
Re:Other motivations by AK+Marc · 2016-07-09 07:28 · Score: 1

So you know it's an inefficient and quite wasteful thing, and your response is "Fuck the Environment, because libtards suck"

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Other motivations by AK+Marc · 2016-07-09 07:35 · Score: 1

It was an academic consideration when bitcoin was created. It's not a practical problem, and one of the many reasons Bitcoin will never succeed.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Other motivations by Lehk228 · 2016-07-09 07:49 · Score: 1

every central authority has the ability to control bitcoin. if the DoD wanted to eliminate bitcoin they could easily build a large enough server farm to do so, as could China or Russia

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 08:16 · Score: 1

Deflation increases the wealth of the people holding the currency. In Bitcoin's case, an intentionally disinflationary currency was coupled to a ponzi scheme - the hope was that demand rises high enough for early adopters to make bank (which it did).
Bitcoin has always been expressly designed to favor the people who got bitcoins early. And it was just obvious enough to recruit people who thought themselves early.
Asking people to adopt it worldwide is like Parker Bros saying "We're gonna make Monopoly Money into a valid international currency. Yes, we are the only ones who have Monopoly Money in meaningful quantities. No, we won't be printing hardly any more, we want to protect our investment. It's actually nearly impossible to print it, we engineered it that way. If you want some, you have to give me something in return. But look how pretty it is!"
Don't worry, we do not need you to buy any bitcoin. I actually encourage you to avoid it until you understand it. There are enough of us that will continue to burn our fiat for more fungible currency to keep bitcoin growing. I will continue buying bitcoin even if I have to at 500k+ a bitcoin due to its utility alone. You don't really understand bitcoins utility if you believe if is merely dependent upon speculation, but perhaps in 4 to 8 years as bitcoin continues to grow in value you may scratch your head and revisit its value proposition (hint - paying a premium for fungibility for regulatory arbitrage). I encourage you to short bitcoin or just avoid it altogether until you understand why certain people depend upon bitcoin even to survive and that is what primarily gives it value.
Re:Other motivations by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 08:26 · Score: 1

Which is exactly what governments do with a fiat currency - adjust the availability of the currency to stabilize and moderate its value, to maintain a slight inflation rate. And we've come full circle. The folks who rejected fiat currencies and advocated bitcoin have learned the lesson governments learned with gold eighty years ago, and are advocating changes to make it behave more like a fiat currency.
Bitcoins volatility is a fair criticism of it as a currency. Just keep in mind -
1) Bitcoin is becoming less volatile with each passing year
2) Bitcoin isn't just a currency, so even in the offchance it fails as a currency it can still be very valueable as a protocol, or asset class, or store of value , or just for the blackmarket , or.for smart contracts and an immutable ledger , or . ect..
3) Bitcoin is already more stable than certain fiat currencies, remember bitcoin only needs to be valuable to certain people , not all , for it to succeed
Re:Other motivations by thegarbz · 2016-07-09 10:57 · Score: 1

That has never been a selling point.

Yes it has, from the very start. Use this. It's better than paypal because it doesn't cost unlike using paypal. Use this, it's better than a bank transfer because it doesn't cost unlike the bank transfer. Constant lines used repeatedly here on our very slashdot by proponents of BitCoin hundreds of times.
The other wonderful feature is independence from control of a central bank. Well that did wonders for it too with the price bouncing around more than cheap hooker in Amsterdam.
Re:Other motivations by dbIII · 2016-07-09 15:53 · Score: 1

True but it's just one of a very long list of things wrong with that pyramid scheme. Even where it came from is a bit of a mystery. Even the conspiracy theory of it being developed by spooks to trace black market cash flows fits when such a thing would normally be considered a joke.
Re:Other motivations by dbIII · 2016-07-09 15:58 · Score: 1

You have entirely missed the point. Wikipedia has a fine page on Ponzi schemes that will help.
Re: Other motivations by AK+Marc · 2016-07-11 07:46 · Score: 1

There's no value in "proving work". The work had no value, so proving it had no value as well.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re: Black Lives Matter by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-08 22:32 · Score: 1

Black lives are a subset of all lives, so if all lives matter, then black lives matter. Simple maths.

Re:Ive said it before. by Opportunist · 2016-07-08 22:35 · Score: 2

Bitcoin mining certainly is. Bitcoins themselves are just like any fiat currency: Worth what others deem it worth based on how much they trust it to still have that worth when they want to spend it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Austerity by Opportunist · 2016-07-08 22:36 · Score: 1

It's the way the IMF forces onto Greece. Big difference.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Ive said it before. by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-07-08 22:49 · Score: 2

This is precisely why Bitcoin has always been a scam. If you weren't in on the ground floor you get screwed.

Not getting the maximum profit is not the same as getting screwed. Same as any company where the early investors reap the maximum profits but the companies still trade on the exchange with robust health.

There will be another halving in a few years - you could get in now and be in that advantaged position then.

Be more worried about privacy problems with bitcoin than that you weren't an early investor.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Stupid rule by allo · 2016-07-08 23:11 · Score: 1

Why such a hard step instead of a constant progression?

Re:Stupid rule by Orgasmatron · 2016-07-08 23:22 · Score: 1

The rule, as written, is simple and unambiguous. Literally integer division followed by a rightshifting.

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:Stupid rule by allo · 2016-07-08 23:59 · Score: 1

And it has a hard step, causing turbulence in bitcoin exchanges and so on.
If you want it easy, you could even publish a rule giving the rate for each day until the "next step", then there is a small step at 12am every day. Way better.
Re:Stupid rule by ladoga · 2016-07-09 00:20 · Score: 1

Why such a hard step instead of a constant progression?
That's a good question. Maybe because it was simple? Anyway that's what Satoshi came up with and it will have to do. The decision has been criticized for unnecessary turbulence/price volatility which it causes.

Many newer cryptocurrencies such as Monero have opted to smoothly decreasing supply instead.
Re:Stupid rule by allo · 2016-07-09 05:46 · Score: 1

I am not that much into bitcoin, but i guess before such steps there is a lot of mining activity, which ceases after the step to wait what happens to the price then?
A smooth decrease would not cause such things.
Re:Stupid rule by dbIII · 2016-07-09 16:15 · Score: 1

To make it way better do not a have a deflationary pyramid scheme to speculate on at all.
The only reason it prospers is because it's easier to swap tokens from an obvious scam than move real money about without various banking sharks taking a cut. Pretty sad isn't it?
Re:Stupid rule by allo · 2016-07-09 21:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, i still see some pyramid scheme ... the early adopters are rich as fuck now if they believed in it and invested, while people mining now have investet as lot of real money in their mining farms, which probably now are just garbage, because running them costs more than they get from them.
This doesn't stop me to just buy bitcoin and pay with it, but it's a unfair game with respect to "free money" in the early days.

Re:Ive said it before. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-08 23:25 · Score: 1

You mean like in the same way natural resources and properties is a scam?
If you weren't around to grab it when it was available you are screwed.

BitCoin's Central Bank lowers interest rate by turkeydance · 2016-07-08 23:40 · Score: 1

it always comes back to the banksters.

Re:BitCoin's Central Bank lowers interest rate by AndrewBuck · 2016-07-09 01:11 · Score: 1

Actually a decrease in the money supply would both cause an increase in secondary lending rates (because money is more scarce and therefore more burdensome to loan) and also in a fractional reserve system like the one you are complaining about could be caused by an increase in the federal funds rate as opposed to a decrease like you claimed. But don't let your complete lack of knowledge regarding monetary policy stop you from opining on something you know nothing about.
For those who actually care, if the central bank decreased interest rates as the parent post suggested, more people would borrow more money and therefore lead to more money creation, not less.
-AndrewBuck

Re:Ive said it before. by meglon · 2016-07-08 23:51 · Score: 1

Any currency is that way, whether it's based on faith or object.

--
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's

Fiat correction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-09 00:13 · Score: 1

Not quite. If a country has a minimum wage law, then the currency is effectively underpinned by a quantity of labor.

Pretty much the modern equivalent of a gold standard, but using a service instead of a commodity.

Re:Fiat correction by Opportunist · 2016-07-09 10:05 · Score: 1

Wow, I never knew I live in a failed state. The millions trying desperately to get in almost fooled me...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Ive said it before. by Luthair · 2016-07-09 01:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

I've always said it was a pyramid scheme. For early miners it was very easy to mine and each score was bigger, but the system relied upon ever more people buying into the scheme to create value.

Re:Austerity by phayes · 2016-07-09 01:13 · Score: 1

The IMF doesn't force it's way anywhere. However, if you ask the IMF to lend you money it doesn't lend good money after bad into a blind pit without conditions like reforming your economy and paying your taxes. Greece could have chosen to go without but even populist demagogues like Tsipiras recognise that the reforms are necessary to improve Greece's future.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Profit like 1849 profiteers by Antique+Geekmeister · 2016-07-09 01:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sell the equipment and resources to the miners, skim the illicit trade hidden from governments, and rob your clients blind as an exit strategy seems to be the result of Bitcoin operations. Are there _any_ bitcoin markets that show legitimate handling of client transactions for more than a few months without turning to direct theft from clients?

Re:Profit like 1849 profiteers by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:21 · Score: 1

Sell the equipment and resources to the miners, skim the illicit trade hidden from governments, and rob your clients blind as an exit strategy seems to be the result of Bitcoin operations. Are there _any_ bitcoin markets that show legitimate handling of client transactions for more than a few months without turning to direct theft from clients?
There is real value created in minting virgin bitcoins as it allows miners to trade an ASIC and electricity for heat and fungible currency. While there has indeed been some scamming ASIC manufactures "premining on ASIC's" while the clients wait on preorders, and there does indeed exist some fractional reserve cloud mining operations, a normal user can now buy an ASIC from several reputable manufactures , have it immediately delivered with no pre-order wait time, and expect a profit if their electrical costs are low. If they can recycle the waste heat than their profits will be even higher as well.

Re:Ive said it before. by cryptizard · 2016-07-09 01:26 · Score: 1

Eventually, no new coins ... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.

This doesn't come anywhere close to being a coherent thought. What are you talking about?

Re:Ive said it before. by khallow · 2016-07-09 01:56 · Score: 1

Bitcoin depends on artificial scarcity for value- never a good thing.

All currency and money equivalents depend on scarcity else there's no point to the currency in either of the roles usually assigned to it (medium of exchange and store of value). Further, the scarcity of bitcoins is quite natural, arising inherently from the Bitcoin system.

Re:Ive said it before. by spacepimp · 2016-07-09 01:57 · Score: 1

The artificial scarcity here is not ADVANTAGING ANYONE. That is a big distinction. There is no bank to manipulate or be manipulated. The BTC from here to the very last one mined are able to be mined at a known rate. When they are mined, the currency functions without any scarcity. The only alternative here would be to have all bitcoin already in the wild. That wouldn't work. How would you solve the equation?

I know many people who mine. Only one of them has a libertarian appreciation. As for stealing to get bitcoin. Well that is hardly different when people hack ATM's, or steal peoples banking info online. But because people are criminal when it comes to bitcoin obviously people are fools to trust the system?

The banking industry in this world generates a vastly larger carbon footprint. Not to mention all of the other evils they inflict on the world. Too big to fail should be too big to exist.

Re:Ive said it before. by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:12 · Score: 1

I've always said it was a pyramid scheme. For early miners it was very easy to mine and each score was bigger, but the system relied upon ever more people buying into the scheme to create value.

Bitcoin is disinflationary and has already reached a critical mass of users where there is absolutely no need for anyone else to adopt it. If more people adopt bitcoin , great, if not than bitcoin will continue to appreciate if the existing userbase finds value in its fungibility. Now here is a very important point to consider. Bitcoin primary value rests in the premium for fungibility over fiat. Thus bitcoin will always be useful for its existing userbase, or any new adopters, if regulations and states exist because one of the key value propositions with bitcoin is regulatory arbitrage. What this means is that the surest way to destroy the demand for bitcoin is to remove all fiat currency, states, and laws and regulations. Do you think this is ever going to happen?

Re:Ive said it before. by Khyber · 2016-07-09 02:24 · Score: 1

"Bitcoin is disinflationary"

The rapidly and falsely-rising 'value' of bitcoin tells me and anyone else that ever paid attention to economics that you're dead wrong.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Ive said it before. by angel'o'sphere · 2016-07-09 02:26 · Score: 1

The system does not rely on anything like that. That is exactly the reason why the amount of coins that can be mined in a time period is halved after each time period.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:HIGHLY ILLEGAL by Khyber · 2016-07-09 02:28 · Score: 1

Meh, gold's not really worth shit.

Rhodium, Osmium, Platinum? Now we're talking.

Also, gemstones.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Ive said it before. by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 02:42 · Score: 1

"Bitcoin is disinflationary"

The rapidly and falsely-rising 'value' of bitcoin tells me and anyone else that ever paid attention to economics that you're dead wrong.

Bitcoin is disinflationary from a minting or production perspective until the year 2140 and than inflation will slow to 0. It can behave either inflationary or deflationary within an economy as a matter of supply and demand. Right now there is ~2.34 million in inflation a day hitting the markets and within a few hour the inflation hitting the markets will be half that. If you need some evidence that bitcoin can act inflationary within the economy than just look at its capitulation during 2014 where inflation outpaced demand.

Re:HIGHLY ILLEGAL by sphealey · 2016-07-09 02:44 · Score: 1

Iridium - Hammer's Slammers need a LOT of that stuff.

sPh

Re: Black Lives Matter by Deadstick · 2016-07-09 02:59 · Score: 1

Yes they do: but the white lives have police protection.

Re:Ive said it before. by Kjella · 2016-07-09 03:02 · Score: 1

I've always said it was a pyramid scheme. For early miners it was very easy to mine and each score was bigger, but the system relied upon ever more people buying into the scheme to create value.

It was very easy to mine, so it was also near worthless. Both those who started to churn away GPU time and the very first people to sell/trade things of real value for Bitcoins took a huge leap of faith that this wouldn't just flop and be worth absolutely nothing. I remember reading about it when it passed $1 in value and thinking this was just a fad that would be nothing more than a few nerds passing around pizza and beer money before it flopped, so I'd strongly disagree that it looked like a pyramid scheme you should get in early on. Sure, in hindsight it's easy to say I was wrong but I'd say they got 100:1 their money on a 100:1 chance to succeed.

And the essence of a pyramid scheme is that there's no bottom, it only exist as long as it grows by feeding new money in from the bottom. While those at the top make good money, I'd argue those at the bottom are mostly no longer speculators. They're people that for various reasons use Bitcoins to transfer funds around and they'll continue to do so regardless of whether it's valued at $100 or $1000. They're not dependent on recruiting a next generation to pay them for the pyramid to stand. It's like how the people at the top of a start-up that goes boom sit with tons of shares, that by itself doesn't make it a pyramid scheme.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Dimitri at a Rave learns about Bitcoin by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 03:18 · Score: 1

Dimitri at a Rave last night learning about the 21 million limit and bitcoin being disinflationary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Well, no miners have 100% procent margin by Joce640k · 2016-07-09 04:05 · Score: 2

Or... (3) Change the algorithm so that ASICs have a hard time with it but normal CPUs don't.

--
No sig today...

No fight since price more than doubled ... by drnb · 2016-07-09 04:14 · Score: 2

The price already did increased, even x3 in last ~month, possibly that was in anticipation of this effect

Exactly, there is no fight for survival since the price more than doubled. Any miner that survived during the time bitcoin spent in the mid 200's recently is quite happy even with the split. If anything miners that had shut down are now finding it profitable to turn their hardware back on, again even factoring in the split. With current prices and a split we are equivalent to the low 300's. Mid 200's to low 300's (equivalent) is a win for miners.

Sure, a handful of very old mining hardware might be turned back on for now, hardware that needs 500+, they're just going for a brief final run until the split but they haven't really been players for over a year.

Re:Ive said it before. by Fwipp · 2016-07-09 04:14 · Score: 1

Bitcoin is just like dog shit. It's worth what others deem it worth based on blah blah blah blah blah.

Re:Ive said it before. by Fwipp · 2016-07-09 04:17 · Score: 1

Sure buddy, deflation of currency doesn't advantage those that have a lot of that currency. That's a totally reasonable thing you're saying.

Virtual currency does not require lots of power by drnb · 2016-07-09 04:19 · Score: 1

Everything takes energy.

Its a solved problem, the mining/minting algorithm can be based on proof of ownership not proof of work. See Nxt for example. The problem is in distributing the ownership initially after block chain genesis.

Re:Ive said it before. by Fwipp · 2016-07-09 04:20 · Score: 1

"Continue to appreciate"

Sweetheart, when a currency appreciates, that's deflation. You can say "disinflationary" all you want.

Switch bitcoin to proof of ownership by drnb · 2016-07-09 04:25 · Score: 1

In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.

What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.

Thus if bitcoin every did go mainstream than the electrical costs to mint such bitcoins would also similarly skyrocket .

No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.

Re:Switch bitcoin to proof of ownership by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 08:01 · Score: 1

In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Today the cost of bitcoin production dropped from ~1.6 million per day to around 820k a day USD and the price remained the same.

No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
There are many more problems with proof of stake than you imply. Take a look at the security concerns the Ethereum community has with a bad actor controlling a significant stake and their upcoming wishes to switch to proof of stake as an example.
Re:Switch bitcoin to proof of ownership by drnb · 2016-07-09 10:49 · Score: 1

In the past the value of bitcoin was inherently tied to the production costs of bitcoin where there is a very narrow margin of profit above the minting costs from production.
What makes you think this has changed? The price has roughly doubled with a reward halving upcoming.
Today the cost of bitcoin production dropped from ~1.6 million per day to around 820k a day USD and the price remained the same.
Look at a historical chart. It ramped up in anticipation, speculation. It doesn't just double on the day. People have been expecting the doubling, so miners stay around, and have been buying as a result.

https://www.coinbase.com/chart...

No, bitcoin could switch from a proof of work system to a proof of ownership system. The problem with the later is the initial distribution of coins, but that is a problem for a new coin not an established coin that is already widely distributed.
There are many more problems with proof of stake than you imply. Take a look at the security concerns the Ethereum community has with a bad actor controlling a significant stake and their upcoming wishes to switch to proof of stake as an example.
You are merely re-stating the problem I described earlier, and bitcoin is widely distributed and beyond such concerns. This issue we both refer to is a big problem for coins that are born proof of stake, not those who switch to proof of state once mature.

Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by drnb · 2016-07-09 04:28 · Score: 1

Bitcoin won't be viable for shit until you can process a few million per second.

Visa averages around 2k tps (transactions per second)

Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.

Re:Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 07:54 · Score: 1

Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
99.9% of speculation and btc day trading happens offchain within exchanges though.
Re:Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by drnb · 2016-07-09 10:56 · Score: 1

Visa is not supporting a speculative investment scheme. Bitcoin is more analogous to high frequency wall street trading, not actual consumer transactions. Bitcoin is *currently* primarily a speculative investment scheme.
99.9% of speculation and btc day trading happens offchain within exchanges though.
Doubtful. Leaving bitcoins in an exchange is universally considered high risk and that transferring the coins to your wallet is highly advised.
Re:Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by codebonobo · 2016-07-10 00:05 · Score: 1

99.9% of speculation and btc day trading happens offchain within exchanges though.
Doubtful. Leaving bitcoins in an exchange is universally considered high risk and that transferring the coins to your wallet is highly advised.
Although modern exchanges are regulated , insured and more secure I agree with you its typically not wise to leave you coins on an exchange. Regardless , my statement is 100% accurate because one cannot effectively daytrade if they are constantly removing their coins from exchanges. I don't daytrade but know a large part of the community who does and they don't often remove their assets.
Re:Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by drnb · 2016-07-11 07:04 · Score: 1

Actually you are mistaken because you assume the speculation is day trading. Many speculators are holding coins for longer than hours, waiting for big changes like the one we have recently experienced. Many are probably trying to time their exit right now, play "safe" and exit at 650 or risk a little more an exit at 750. Many thinking things will eventually stabilize at 500 to 600, like the year spent at 250 to 300, same block reward for miners despite the halving to keep the hardware online.
Re:Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by codebonobo · 2016-07-11 14:46 · Score: 1

Actually you are mistaken because you assume the speculation is day trading. Many speculators are holding coins for longer than hours, waiting for big changes like the one we have recently experienced. Many are probably trying to time their exit right now, play "safe" and exit at 650 or risk a little more an exit at 750. Many thinking things will eventually stabilize at 500 to 600, like the year spent at 250 to 300, same block reward for miners despite the halving to keep the hardware online.
The context of this discussion involved tx velocity and throughput. Sure, I agree that speculation is one of bitcoins killer apps, but bag holders don't place much tx pressure onchain when they sell a few coins once a year with a single tx to send them to an exchange so I don't know where you are going with this discussion being that you were insinuating Bitcoin needed to have a higher tps than VISA because a few early investors dump some coins once a year.
Re:Bitcoin is a speculative investment scheme by drnb · 2016-07-14 09:36 · Score: 1

Actually you are mistaken because you assume the speculation is day trading. Many speculators are holding coins for longer than hours, waiting for big changes like the one we have recently experienced. Many are probably trying to time their exit right now, play "safe" and exit at 650 or risk a little more an exit at 750. Many thinking things will eventually stabilize at 500 to 600, like the year spent at 250 to 300, same block reward for miners despite the halving to keep the hardware online.
The context of this discussion involved tx velocity and throughput. Sure, I agree that speculation is one of bitcoins killer apps, but bag holders don't place much tx pressure onchain when they sell a few coins once a year with a single tx to send them to an exchange so I don't know where you are going with this discussion being that you were insinuating Bitcoin needed to have a higher tps than VISA because a few early investors dump some coins once a year.
If you re-read you will find I am referring to a wide spectrum of timeframes. More importantly VISA only does consumer transactions while Bitcoin does both consumer transactions and speculative trading, so yes, Bitcoin needs a greater capacity than VISA.

Owners of coins can manage blockchain by drnb · 2016-07-09 04:38 · Score: 1

Honest question from someone who only knows the basics: how do you trade bitcoins without miners around? I thought the transactions had to be embedded in the blockchain.

You use a proof of ownership mining/minting scheme like Nxt rather than the current proof of work mining/minting scheme. In proof of ownership it is the owners of coins who make their computer a node in the network for the processing of transactions which maintain the blockchain.

Switching to proof of ownership is something bitcoin could do. Especially now that coins are widely distributed. The big problem with proof of ownership is the initial distribution of coins, bitcoin is beyond that.

Of course miners will oppose any such switch. But if bitcoin wishes to survive in the long term and not be centrally controlled by mining hardware manufacturers (China) operating their own farms next to dirt cheap hydroelectricity (China), and return power to users (owners of coins), and truly be peer-to-peer (owners participate as a node in mining/minting network), then proof of ownership is one of very few options.

Re:Black Lives Matter by haruchai · 2016-07-09 06:54 · Score: 1

The black community is and has been doing plenty for a long time. What they don't have control over is themselves and their young men being stopped, frisked, arrested & incarcerated for things where white men don't get hassled, go free, get probation or lesser sentences.

Once you're in the system, everything in your life changes. You can't simply serve your time and have your life reset like it's a video game.
Your job prospects are affected, every traffic stop becomes a major event, you can be refused housing or denied renting an apartment, credit terms, bank loans, even your college application is under greater scrutiny.

Former convicts end up leaving jail in debt - and I'm not talking about owing a few hundred or a few thousand for cigarettes & snacks but 10s or even 100s of thousands for the burden of keeping you locked up, while you were making thirteen cents / hr in prison labor.

It's used to be that "paying your debt to society" meant serving your time & walking the straight & narrow after. Nowadays, the sentence is just the 1st installment and you don't get prime interest rates for the $20k - $50k for the time you spent in the State Hilton

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Re:Ive said it before. by Lehk228 · 2016-07-09 07:51 · Score: 1

there are massive amounts of old bitcoins not currently accounted for, whoever has them of the original players stands to make a lot of money slowly flooding the market with them

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:Ive said it before. by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 08:05 · Score: 1

"Continue to appreciate"

Sweetheart, when a currency appreciates, that's deflation. You can say "disinflationary" all you want.

Yes , of course bitcoin is often acting deflationary(which is great) , but sometimes behaves inflationary based upon supply and demand. I am clearly making a distinction between minting (disinflationary) and how bitcoin behaves in the economy (sometimes inflationary and sometimes deflationary). There have been long periods of inflation as well. Take a look at 2014.

Re:Well, no miners have 100% procent margin by Troed · 2016-07-09 08:19 · Score: 1

Because Ethereum's PoW oh wait PoS oh wait but maybe is a joke?

--
it's in my head

Re:Well, no miners have 100% procent margin by codebonobo · 2016-07-09 08:30 · Score: 2

You mean like Ethereum? Why not just jump ship from Bitcoin?

Ethereum has many problems besides its goals of switching to an untested and insecure proof of stake algo. It was largely premined , it is insecure , it won't scale, the halting problem and recursion will haunt it, its functionality can be replicated by bitcoin more securely, it lacks a network effect, most of the largest stakeholders can be targeted, they are planning on reversing the history and blacklisting thus removing immutability, ect..

Re:Ive said it before. by PingPongBoy · 2016-07-09 09:54 · Score: 1

A new bitcoin algorithm, written in Beginners' All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Coconut.

10 c = speed of lite beer
20 accelerate my ass to c
30 gosub and return to Earth just in time for no new coins being min(t)able
40 sell junk on ebay for bitcoin
50 ? "profit!"
60 REM Never spend bitcoin
70 go to 40 until I gots them all

When the no-new-bitcoins era comes, and you are greeted by a homeless guy who tells you he "gave" away everything for all the bitcoins in the world ...

How does that story play out?

--
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.

Re:Ive said it before. by PingPongBoy · 2016-07-09 09:58 · Score: 1

And what could be more natural than bitcoin, a construct of mind?

Even the universe itself, all of nature, does not boast philosophical intuition for being necessary to exist, at least to us bumheads.

--
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.

Re:Ive said it before. by Opportunist · 2016-07-09 10:06 · Score: 1

That's basically what props up all the currencies: That people think they can still get something in exchange for it tomorrow. The moment this stops, the currency's value drops rapidly.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Austerity by Opportunist · 2016-07-09 10:07 · Score: 1

No, you don't have to work for less than a slave would make, you could always choose to starve to death...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re: Ive said it before. by StigEide · 2016-07-09 10:16 · Score: 1

Who got rich during the California gold rush era? HINT: it wasn't the gold miners. The answer is: The people who sold the miners and other gold rush followers the tools and supplies they needed.

Own goal by dbIII · 2016-07-09 16:03 · Score: 1

Yes - fiat currency declared by a recluse with a false name.
Makes it far worse than fiat currency of a state with real assets doesn't it?

I really don't get why bitcoin perpetrators take this angle - it's an own goal.

Re:Ive said it before. by dbIII · 2016-07-09 16:10 · Score: 1

If you go back to the very first article about bitcoin on Slashdot you will see multiple posts about it being deflationary and an obvious pyramid scheme.

Re: Ive said it before. by dbIII · 2016-07-09 16:12 · Score: 1

By sheer fluke I'm rereading Mark Twain's "Roughing It" where he has a lot to say about that topic, although it was the Nevada silver rush at the time.

You keep on using that word by dbIII · 2016-07-09 16:19 · Score: 1

Disinflationary - You keep on using that word. How about instead of trying to mislead people you just write "deflation"? You can't? The rubes would catch on and not add to the pyramid scheme?

The entire thing is a scam baited for geeks and really pisses me off.

Re:You keep on using that word by codebonobo · 2016-07-10 00:11 · Score: 1

Disinflationary - You keep on using that word. How about instead of trying to mislead people you just write "deflation"? You can't? The rubes would catch on and not add to the pyramid scheme? The entire thing is a scam baited for geeks and really pisses me off.
I have been using the word "deflation". I have no reason to avoid using this word as it doesn't strike fear in my heart like it apparently does to you. It is a simple fact that bitcoin often behaves deflationary in the economy as the US dollar has lost 99.98 % against bitcoin in the last 6 years due to high demand and the fact that the minting supply is disinflationary. This isn't always the case however as you can see bitcoin behaved inflationary in 2014 due to a relatively high inflation minting rate of ~9%

Re:Austerity by phayes · 2016-07-09 19:30 · Score: 1

False dichotomy. I disagree with you so you attempt to use the most ridiculous comparison possible to attempt to justify your position.

No, my brother the drug addict, you may not take my rent money to pay for your habit, my children need a roof over their heads. I will give you money but only for rehab.

The Greeks had everything planned to refuse the IMF's conditions, exit the EEC and reintroduce the drachma but that wouldn't have reformed the greek economy nor changed their habit of not paying taxes. Greece's problems aren't the IMFs conditions, it's a declining economy, an omnivorous non-productive public sector and a bankrupt government.

I, like the IMF, & the USG think that the Greeks also need debt relief, but that's something the EEC will not give until the greeks finish implementing reforms.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Austerity by Opportunist · 2016-07-10 15:21 · Score: 1

Then maybe those reforms should start by not buying more submarines, but I guess Germany wouldn't want that to happen...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

It's the economy, stupid by phayes · 2016-07-10 17:32 · Score: 1

Ah so it is the submarines that were the biggest issue in the Greek debt crisis. Yup, that's what every meeting between the Greeks and the IMF/EEC spent the most time on which was reflected in the importance Submarines were given in newspaper headlines of the day where The Submarine Issue dominated economic reform...

That you think an argument as weak and easily provable as a minor detail as this is is important shows how poorly you understand the Greek crisis & the IMF. It does serve to clearly display (at least some of) your bias though.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:It's the economy, stupid by Opportunist · 2016-07-10 23:17 · Score: 1

The biggest issue, hardly. But it sure contributed to the problem that they were pretty much told to cut any and all government spending that could remotely put money back into the circulation of local businesses but sending money abroad is a-ok.
What happened here was basically a loan shark telling you that you have to buy his junk for the money he lends you, whether you need it or not.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:It's the economy, stupid by phayes · 2016-07-11 00:47 · Score: 1

So why bring it up, other than to attempt once again to paint your falsehoods as truths? What's rich is that the acuisition of German subs by Greece was something the _Greeks_ requested as an addition to their bill, not something the Germans were foisting unwanted upon the Greeks. Given how deep into debt the Greeks are, it's a hidden subsidy to HDW by the German government that will be forgiven and never repaid. Kockums should be complaining but you don't notice the Greeks or the Germans saying anything.
And again, the Greeks free capitol addicts did not get to take everyone's money to continue living beyond their means. Once they showed signs of kicking their free spending ways they received more loans. The only ressemblance to a loan shark is in the mind of those for whom thievery is justifiable.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Slashdot Mirror

Bitcoin 'Miners' Face Fight For Survival As New Supply Halves (reuters.com)

112 of 164 comments (clear)