Slashdot Mirror
India Rejects Cryptocurrency, But It Isn't Giving Up On Blockchain (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson shares a report from BetaNews: A budget speech given by India's finance minister led to numerous reports that India was banning the use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum within the country. While Arun Jaitley noted in a speech that the Indian government does not recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender, his slightly ambiguous language resulted in something of a misunderstanding. Now the Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Committee of the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has spoken out in an attempt to clarify the issue, and allay fears that Bitcoin et al are on the verge of being banned. At first glance, Jaitley's speech certainly seemed to imply that the Indian government wants to forbid the use of cryptocurrencies. In reality, he merely voiced concern about how cryptocurrencies were being used, and announced vague plans to introduce regulation to stop their use for illegal purposes. Delivering his speech, Jaitley said: "Distributed ledger system or the block chain technology allows organization of any chain of records or transactions without the need of intermediaries. The Government does not consider crypto-currencies legal tender or coin and will take all measures to eliminate use of these cryptoassets in financing illegitimate activities or as part of the payment system. The Government will explore use of block chain technology proactively for ushering in digital economy."
BeauHD must be PUNISHED for being an INFIDEL and promoting such banished usurer's blasphemy as well as being a SODOMITE.
Talking out of both sides of their ass, as usual.
"plans to introduce regulation to stop their use for illegal purposes"
So, they're going to make things illegal, that were already illegal? Great.
The world would be a much easier place if we shorten that term to "crypto" from now on.
“The government does not recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender or coin and will take all measures to eliminate the use of these crypto assets in financing illegitimate activities or as part of the payments system.”
It sounds like they have no clue whether they are for or against it, probably because it's a committee of people from both sides, not agreeing on anything and unable to present a single coherent message.
In any case, "blockchain uses other than cryptocurrency" is 100% nonsense. The only advantages of blockchains over a normal database is that they can decentralize artificial-scarcity-enforcement by channeling actual scarcity of energy and/or mining hardware.
India Rejects Cryptocurrency
Followed by an article which explains they don't.
The world would be a much easier place if we shorten that term to "crypto" from now on.
Then how did you login? Secure HTTP (HTTPS)... i.e., HTTP that's encrypted, using cryptography? Don't be ignorant.
I'm not sure it's possible to write the required libs using Turbo C
Illegal activity is illegal by definition and all payments associated with it are illegal. Blockchain as a concept has promise but is broken beyond practical use currently, but it can be replaced with better.
What in the ten kings is this?
My deep belief. Time will tell.
"Officialdom and the standing army-" writes Lenin, "that is a 'parasite' on the body of bourgeois society, a parasite created by the inner contradictions which tear this society, yet nothing but a parasite stopping up the living pores." Beginning with 1917-that is, from the moment when the conquest of power confronted the party as a practical problem-Lenin was continually occupied with the thought of liquidating this "parasite." After the over throw of the exploiting 'Classes-he repeats and explains in every chapter of State and Revolution--- the proletariat will shatter the old bureaucratic machine and create its own apparatus out of employees and workers. And it will take measures against their turning into bureaucrats "measures analyzed in detail by Marx and Engels : (1) not only election but recall at any time ; (2) payment no higher than the wages of a worker ; (3) immediate transition to a regime in which all will fulfill the functions of control and supervision so that all may for a time become 'bureaucrats', and therefore nobody can become a bureaucrat." (Revolution Betrayed, L. Trotsky)
First I know what a block chain is and how I would do it. I can see there is no need for a currency at a technical level.
On the otherhand it seems to be that it's not possible to have a distributed blockchain without having some limiter on who can emit it. That is, it has to be hard to compute the hash or anyone can come along, unwind the past transactions and double spend.
So how does a blockchain work when there's no limits on how fast one can hash?
Or conversely if there's no incentive to hash via either mining or fees then why would anyone do it. And if no none is doing it, then the difficulty of doublespending goes down.
This last feature seems like it's the built in end state of bitcoin by the way. Once miners lose interest then the dificulty goes down. And then someone will have enough latent compute power to come along and run a double spending operation.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Lenin himself was an official, and a bureaucrat, and had a wage, and commanded an army. He himself is the parasite that he complains of. Hence the need for a cryptocurrency upheld by profit-driven miners. May the miners reign for ever and ever!
Hardly, cryptomining is eating up the earth for nothing, for nothingness is the essence of money. Even if one were mining votes, it'd do no good, for computation cannot be substituted for faith. (For one is already giving credence to the network, to computation, and in an horribly inefficient, hypocritical & roundabout way at that). When you will have made an end of electricity (coal, trees, oil, animals, uranium, etc.) all of a sudden you will experience firsthand your hardly mined cryptocoins' essence...
Cryptocurrencies only keep kicking because "They", through pr0n* & social interaction**, succeeded, if belatedly, in creating the missing link, namely homo stultum.
* http://time.com/135853/porn-brain/
** http://www.pnas.org/content/108/22/9020 ***
*** Interestingly, social-nodal influence based consensus is what makes blockchains...
1. Faith is not needed. Pricing needs nothing more than an intersection of supply curve and demand curve. The price cannot fall too far since it is (approximately) bounded below by the cost. Nor can it rise too high, because the mining rate rises faster than the price.
2. I guess you could make electricity out of animals, if that's your thing. For example, one could power a huge turbine engine by burning live giraffes as fuel, and use that to turn a generator shaft. I'm not sure why you brought this up though, as making electricity out of animals is clearly uncommon.
2nd 2. There are certain things we will never run out of. The bulk of the Earth's crust* is made of silicates of iron, aluminum, etc., so we'll never run out of silicon, or iron, or aluminum.
3. Electricity, of course, is not a finite resource that can run out. You can get electricity "forever" ** from hydro dams, solar panels, wind turbines...
So "when you have made an end of electricity" is a pretty nonsensical thing.
*and the mantle, which is even bigger
**not literally forever, since the Sun eventually expands, destroying the Earth.
1) Have you faith in "Faith is not needed"...? The experience of dealing with memory hierarchies proves that one cannot reach agreement between producer & consumer, there shall be overproduction (leave data up the memory hierarchy for locality-principle backed probable future use) or starvation (data need be cached & accessed lower & slower). But then, you have to melt capital glaciers (create money ex nihilo to provide the masses with means to spoil the surplus... before inflating the prices) or freeze liquidity (exact money through e.g., inflation, taxes, bills, interest to decelerate the vanishing of goods... before the plebeian gets too angry). None of which are very well in accord with a constant amount of capital, which seems to be the dumb Commie libertarian working hypothesis: cryptocurrency as gold.
2) You, the mining farm's owner, eat the animals while contributing nothing in return. A parasite.
3) I actually laughed upon reading your "solar panels, wind turbines". As for water, the pollution caused, among others, by billions of GPUs, including what it takes to manufacture such growing quantities, will no doubt have adverse effects on the dams' replenishment...
a.) of course not. All is uncertain. Even the presumption of uncertainty, is itself uncertain, and must be called into question...
a'.) Not sure if your bit about mem hierarchy is quite right; it matters not. But at least it made some sense. The next sentence, about capital glacier, I can't really see what this is supposed to be or what it has to do with the topic of discussion.* I suppose if there were one, you would have gotten to it. A point, I mean.
a''.) "dumb Commie libertarian" is a bit of an odd combo. I mean, sure Commies are dumb, and libertarians are dumb, but they are two completely separate groups of clueless asshats. There is almost no overlap.
a'''.) Nobody eats the animals - they are burned as fuel. I thought I was pretty clear on this.
a''''.) why? Do you think we will run out of sunlight, wind, or rain? Are you really that dumb? Pollution doesn't stop the rain from falling. It just makes it yucky rain that you wouldn't want to drink, and that kills fish and stuff. It'll still build up behind a dam and flow through a turbine. The turbine doesn't give a fuck if it's clean water or polluted water.
*The topic of discussion is the ten kings. (See 2nd post in thread).
Concerning "acid rain", you'll have to rebuild dams, gold or diamond dams that is.
Libertarianism is International Communism (the opposite of Stalinism). Not all Communists are as dumb as the Libertarian contingent though. It went full steam after the Renaissance.
Glacier etc.: You have to imagine state or bank capital as a mountaintop's glacier. Melting it means injecting liquidity into circulation, like blood pumped out, freezing which restores wealth to the state, to the head (caput) of the beast that a country is. If you keep a constant amount of money you'll end up creating classes, the exact opposite of what a Commie purports to be wishing, because then money becomes a good, an end subjected to the law of demand and supply: the few will accumulate coins, the rest will pay en nature. And a body's blood analogy doesn't break here, because a head isn't an anus or a penis, to be sure: classes.
So if you want for everybody to get richer and richer, you have to create money out of nothing, and confess that the essence of money is nothingness, that money is no immediate good (unlike food, clothes or roof), that it *has* "value" only insofar as it *is* a value (money has as a property that of "value" of something, say of *past*, lent money as is the case when one has to pay for borrowed money).
Sunlight or wind never ever will be transformed into enough current for your awful country sized arrays of vile GPUs, except you exhaust every resource to create converters and ventilators to add some more wind.
You mean 10 kings as in 10 horns...?
Acid rain is caused by nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, both of which are generally produced by burning stuff.
Solar panel arrays don't cause enough acid rain to damage a dam. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to show that they cause any acid rain at all.
Maybe you'd say the manufacturing process involves burning stuff? But it doesn't have to. There are ways of making solar panels from silicon that is refined from sand using electricity that came from other solar panels. There's no need to burn anything.
Or maybe you'd say it involves rare earths or other expensive and toxic metals. But that's false too. The main components are silicon (not rare), aluminum backplate (not rare), optional glass cover plate (not rare). Even the dopants boron and phosphorus aren't particularly rare or toxic.
Ok, the glacier thing - when you say injecting liquidity, you are proposing inflation. That inflation would be good for consumers. Reality is more complicated. An unexpected inflation would devalue loans, benefiting debtors and harming lenders. But only if it is unexpected. Otherwise, the lenders will account for expected rate of inflation by charging a higher interest rate to cover the risk. So, as long is it's all predictable, inflation or deflation is neutral in it's effect on classes.
Except for one thing, and that's wages, which are usually negotiated in fixed dollars. Generally during inflation, wages rise slower than inflation, (which is like a disguised pay cut) but during deflation, a existing worker's wages don't fall at all - that would be violation of the employment contract. Instead workers are laid off, and replacement workers are hired at a new, lower wage.
This a market failure of sorts, so to avoid it, we generally prefer inflation to be slightly positive.
Now, you could go for the unpredictability thing. Continually make the inflation rate higher and higher to such an extent that the lenders underestimate it every new loan. But even if you do it exponentially, the lenders can spot an exponential trend, and charge exponentially higher interest rates to compensate. You'd run out of new surprises pretty quick, and then the game is up.
There is a lot more sunlight than you seem to realize. The Earth is awash in the stuff. You'll not have a sunlight shortage, I tell ya what.
It was a pleasure. Thank you for the courteous exchange.
This is fantastic to see. 5M+ user accounts and so few have what it takes to write this. Well done!
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Why the argument free downvote? Are these post self-evidently low quality?
What? No, I have no idea what "10 horns" refers to. I'm talking about kings here. Kings! The rulers of monarchies.
And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. (Revelation 17.12)
Huh. It's a coincidence. These are not the same kings.
Thanks bro.
One wonders how India would ban a cryptocurrancy?
Most are decentralized, buyers and sellers can trade in other currencies and then convert.
Miners operate by proxy.