"As such, it has not been destroyed until you can't see it anymore."
That is completely meaningless in this context. From YOUR point of view, it hasn't been destroyed yet. But from the point of view of any inhabitants, it could have been destroyed ALMOST 1,000,000 years prior to that light ever reaching you.
"Nope. because the Kessel run is around a black hole so by mentioning a distance, there is an inferred and determinable minimum velocity need to keep from being drawn off the path and therefore into a longer run or even into the black hole. Your Ford Pinto would never achieve escape velocity if you "take awhile"."
Even if you accept that excuse, it's STILL pseudo-scientific bullshit, because 12 parsecs is more than 39 light years. With the possible exception of a black hole at the center of a galaxy, you aren't going to find a black hole big enough to require that kind of distance.
And you aren't going to be making a "run around" a black hole at the center of any typical galaxy, either. Not necessarily because of the black hole itself, but because other matter is so closely packed that you are GUARANTEED to run into something.
"So I wouldn't go on about Instagram, because you haven't a clue what you're looking at or talking about."
What the hell are YOU talking about?
I wasn't "going on" about instagram at all. I was simply discussing the quality of these pictures versus OTHER pictures and micrographs I have seen of actual snowflakes. And I have seen many.
It was GP who was joking about instagram. If you have an issue, go talk to her.
"No, they are merely discussing that the Bitcoin currency is limited in amount like gold was. You can't create arbitrary amounts and generate inflation in that way."
You are (A) trying to make a distinction that is no real difference, and (B) misconstruing what they said. Since you can't come up with a real argument, I will say in this thread as I have in others: Bye!
"No, I noted that someone, for example, the central banks could exchange dollars for gold. That has to exist or no one could cap the dollar versus gold. No similar mechanism exists for Bitcoins in the standard."
Now you're arguing like a moron. You have already admitted that the gold standard mechanism I was discussing worked in an ENTIRELY ANALOGOUS WAY to Bitcoin exchanges.
Once more: I'm done. You came here and have been making the same specious argument that others have made, over and over and over again. I even pointed out where economists and economic analysts (and that was only a very small sample out of many) say you are wrong, and that didn't sway you one little bit. THEY understand it, but apparently you don't.
The only apology you will get from me is: I am sorry you have such a hard time understanding this concept.
"Ok, then. All I want from you in turn is an apology for wasting the time of the Slashdot community. You have been shown to be wrong long ago. You can even go ahead and actually read the Bitcoin paper so that you're sincere when you make that apology."
Hahaha. That's rich. Since I have nothing to apologize for, that will be a cold day in hell.
You even admitted that you were wrong, back a few posts ago... but then apparently did not and still don't realized it, even though I pointed it out. I am sure as hell not going to apologize to someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and doesn't even recognize the logic of his own arguments.
I should add that just for example, Intel and Micron have a joint plant that was built in the Salt Lake City area around 5-6 years ago, give or take. They have been doing this for a while.
"Not at all. You can run the same code from scratch (as many times as you like). It'll generate a new set of hashes which have nothing to do with the Bitcoin market (aside from exactly implementing the standards of Bitcoins) and hence, no value."
Jesus. You really don't know a damned thing about this, do you?
I already told you, I am done. I meant it. have a nice day.
"...Moments later, the pictures were uploaded to Instagram with a vintage filter, and ceased being cool."
Actually, I don't think you need an instagram filter to make these pictures uncool.
I've seen lots of crystalline snowflakes under magnifiers and microscopes before, and they look nothing like these pictures. The ones I saw had nice sharply-defined edges, but these -- including the nice symmetrical ones -- are noticeably fuzzy around the edges.
No doubt, this is an improvement allowing us to get a look at lots more kinds of snowflakes. It's just that they're actually pretty shitty pictures.
I thought it was pretty clear to someone who understood English that those represented VALUE. I even used that word.
"And if you're speaking of trade-based transactions, they are transitive pretty much, but not reflexive. I might be willing to trade A for B, but that doesn't mean I'll be willing to trade B for A."
But you're referring to subjective rather than intrinsic value, which is a very different thing. A 10 kg block of gold might have intrinsic value, but since that value is far outside anything like my current amount of disposable cash, its subjective value to me is zero. That doesn't change its intrinsic value.
"And the passage of time can change my preferences or the goods and services themselves (for example, the Bitcoin market collapsing completely may mean I no longer am interested in buying Bitcoins for anything)."
Of course it can. But that is a straw man argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with monetary standards.
As I stated in my reply to your other post: I am done here. I have no desire to repeat myself or argue in circles.
You are arguing in circles. First you claimed that the same process DID work for dollars, but you continue to claim that it can't work for Bitcoin. You are contradicting yourself.
"So I went ahead and settled this argument. I looked at the standard for Bitcoins. I saw that the standard indeed didn't establish or guarantee any sort of value for Bitcoins."
"In essence, Bitcoin is similar to the "gold standard," the monetary system in force before modern central banking started to take root in the 1930s. Under the gold standard, each unit of currency was worth a certain amount of gold, leaving governments few means to increase the amount of currency in circulation."
From Paul Krugman (who I think is an incompetent fraud, but just in case you like him):
"In effect, Bitcoin has created its own private gold standard world, in which the money supply is fixed rather than subject to increase via the printing press."
"In short, Bitcoin addresses all of goldâ(TM)s shortcomings... In fact, since Bitcoin is a global network, it would retain its full value between banks on differing continents!"
(But of course, that would depend on a rational market... exactly my original point.)
Face it. Economists from EVERY school of thought disagree with you.
"An intrinsic value for Bitcoins is not part of the standard for Bitcoins"
That's pretty laughable. Look it up.
"For example, I can make any number of copies of the Bitcoin market and dump as much computing power into those copycat hash coin markets as I want. They would have the same standard as Bitcoin since they use the same code."
If they use the same code, you would be generating Bitcoins!!! You could exchange them identically for other Bitcoins, because they would have valid Bitcoin hash values.
You are really reaching. You have already (indirectly) admitted that what I was saying was true. Now you're trying a different excuse that is equally invalid.
"Unfortunately a fab is not a household appliance that you can have installed by next Tuesday. These things take time to plan and build and need to operate for a while before they crank out working chips. If Apple needs flash memory next year, this year is a little late to start planning."
But Intel and Micron have them, as well as the capital to build more. And they could use this as an opportunity to grow themselves and gain market share.
"That still means that someone somewhere (for example, the central banks of other countries) could exchange dollars for gold even if it's not the general public. That still means that someone somewhere (for example, the central banks of other countries) could exchange dollars for gold even if it's not the general public. "
Quite right. That was the point I was making.
"The Bitcoin has no such feature. As part of the standard you can turn some amount of electricity and computing power into Bitcoins, but there is no provision for the reverse."
And this is where you are 100% wrong. Bitcoins can be exchanged for DOLLARS, which ALSO have an easily computed value against that same standard. People can trade in dollars. They do it every day. And you can EASILY turn dollars right back into that same computing time.
You are making my point for me. Strange that you haven't been able to see it for yourself.
"No, and one Bitcoin also can't be exchanged for one unit of computational work. That work was done in the creation of it."
I am getting tired of repeating myself. I have answered this argument elsewhere in this thread several times already.
Some time ago, when the gold standard was still in effect in the U.S., it was made illegal for U.S. citizens to exchange dollars for gold. Did that change the VALUE of that dollar? No, it did not, because the dollar could be exchanged for other things that still had the same valuation as compared to gold.
This isn't rocket science. It may not be practical to exchange Bitcoins directly for computation time, but Bitcoins can be exchanged for other things (like dollars, for example) that have the same VALUE compared to that computation time. There is NO difference. To deny that would be to deny clear historical examples. The dollar isn't the only one.
"Yes, that's what everyone has been telling you."
Yes, exactly. They have been telling me that they are ignorant of how monetary standards work. Thank you for admitting it.
"BitCoin is not backed by anything. There is no organisation or mechanism that guarantees that if you have one BitCoin you can exchange it for something else."
Yes, it is backed by something. And as I have shown just above, the ability to directly exchange has no bearing on its value, as long as it can be exchanged for other things of that same value. We have many, many examples of exactly this same thing.
You aren't arguing anything new here. So how should I reply?
If you read the original statements made by the (anonymous) person or persons who created Bitcoin, you will see that it was indeed designed to have a VALUE as defined by that computation time.
I understand the difference between cost and value. But you should understand that a monetary standard defines value, not cost.
An example I have used elsewhere in this thread: when the dollar was on the gold standard, that defined its value, not its cost (the COST of printing a dollar at that time had no relationship to its value).
In the same vein: regardless of the cost of a Bitcoin, that computation time was defined as its value standard, not just its cost.
See my reply to your other post about this. No, I am not wrong. The fact that a direct exchange is impractical does not make it "not a standard". In fact, given the history of the gold standard in the U.S., this is a rather ridiculous argument to make.
"I have just defined the value of Slashdot posts to be one gram of gold."
Good. Then you are willing to exchange one/. post for one gram of gold? Fantastic! I have thousands of them.
Yet again, this demonstrates an ignorance of how monetary standards work. You can't just declare them and expect them to work. You have to back them up. In the case of Bitcoin, it is firmly backed up by the way Bitcoin was designed to work. That can't be changed.
Granted, it might not be the best choice of standard in the world, because its value standard can't be directly exchanged, but that doesn't make it any less of a standard.
Slashdot Mirror
I *STILL* think the "planetoid" out there past Pluto should have been named Goofy.
"Curiosity: In what context is it a unit of time?"
10 points for composing a question that will never be answered on Slashdot.
"As such, it has not been destroyed until you can't see it anymore."
That is completely meaningless in this context. From YOUR point of view, it hasn't been destroyed yet. But from the point of view of any inhabitants, it could have been destroyed ALMOST 1,000,000 years prior to that light ever reaching you.
"Nope. because the Kessel run is around a black hole so by mentioning a distance, there is an inferred and determinable minimum velocity need to keep from being drawn off the path and therefore into a longer run or even into the black hole. Your Ford Pinto would never achieve escape velocity if you "take awhile"."
Even if you accept that excuse, it's STILL pseudo-scientific bullshit, because 12 parsecs is more than 39 light years. With the possible exception of a black hole at the center of a galaxy, you aren't going to find a black hole big enough to require that kind of distance.
And you aren't going to be making a "run around" a black hole at the center of any typical galaxy, either. Not necessarily because of the black hole itself, but because other matter is so closely packed that you are GUARANTEED to run into something.
"So I wouldn't go on about Instagram, because you haven't a clue what you're looking at or talking about."
What the hell are YOU talking about?
I wasn't "going on" about instagram at all. I was simply discussing the quality of these pictures versus OTHER pictures and micrographs I have seen of actual snowflakes. And I have seen many.
It was GP who was joking about instagram. If you have an issue, go talk to her.
Nobody was forcing you to read this thread, so you have no reason to complain. You can take your smartassed comment and just fuck right off.
"No, they are merely discussing that the Bitcoin currency is limited in amount like gold was. You can't create arbitrary amounts and generate inflation in that way."
You are (A) trying to make a distinction that is no real difference, and (B) misconstruing what they said. Since you can't come up with a real argument, I will say in this thread as I have in others: Bye!
"No, I noted that someone, for example, the central banks could exchange dollars for gold. That has to exist or no one could cap the dollar versus gold. No similar mechanism exists for Bitcoins in the standard."
Now you're arguing like a moron. You have already admitted that the gold standard mechanism I was discussing worked in an ENTIRELY ANALOGOUS WAY to Bitcoin exchanges.
Once more: I'm done. You came here and have been making the same specious argument that others have made, over and over and over again. I even pointed out where economists and economic analysts (and that was only a very small sample out of many) say you are wrong, and that didn't sway you one little bit. THEY understand it, but apparently you don't.
The only apology you will get from me is: I am sorry you have such a hard time understanding this concept.
Have a GREAT day.
"Ok, then. All I want from you in turn is an apology for wasting the time of the Slashdot community. You have been shown to be wrong long ago. You can even go ahead and actually read the Bitcoin paper so that you're sincere when you make that apology."
Hahaha. That's rich. Since I have nothing to apologize for, that will be a cold day in hell.
You even admitted that you were wrong, back a few posts ago... but then apparently did not and still don't realized it, even though I pointed it out. I am sure as hell not going to apologize to someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and doesn't even recognize the logic of his own arguments.
I should add that just for example, Intel and Micron have a joint plant that was built in the Salt Lake City area around 5-6 years ago, give or take. They have been doing this for a while.
"Not at all. You can run the same code from scratch (as many times as you like). It'll generate a new set of hashes which have nothing to do with the Bitcoin market (aside from exactly implementing the standards of Bitcoins) and hence, no value."
Jesus. You really don't know a damned thing about this, do you?
I already told you, I am done. I meant it. have a nice day.
"I don't how Intel has any interest in enter the memory market and Micron has the muscle to be the Samsung replacement."
Intel has been in the memory market for a very long time now, via its partnerships with Micron and others.
Micron already has the memory business(es), Intel has the clount and capital to help Micron expand.
"...Moments later, the pictures were uploaded to Instagram with a vintage filter, and ceased being cool."
Actually, I don't think you need an instagram filter to make these pictures uncool.
I've seen lots of crystalline snowflakes under magnifiers and microscopes before, and they look nothing like these pictures. The ones I saw had nice sharply-defined edges, but these -- including the nice symmetrical ones -- are noticeably fuzzy around the edges.
No doubt, this is an improvement allowing us to get a look at lots more kinds of snowflakes. It's just that they're actually pretty shitty pictures.
"What are these statements A, B, and C?"
I thought it was pretty clear to someone who understood English that those represented VALUE. I even used that word.
"And if you're speaking of trade-based transactions, they are transitive pretty much, but not reflexive. I might be willing to trade A for B, but that doesn't mean I'll be willing to trade B for A."
But you're referring to subjective rather than intrinsic value, which is a very different thing. A 10 kg block of gold might have intrinsic value, but since that value is far outside anything like my current amount of disposable cash, its subjective value to me is zero. That doesn't change its intrinsic value.
"And the passage of time can change my preferences or the goods and services themselves (for example, the Bitcoin market collapsing completely may mean I no longer am interested in buying Bitcoins for anything)."
Of course it can. But that is a straw man argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with monetary standards.
As I stated in my reply to your other post: I am done here. I have no desire to repeat myself or argue in circles.
You are arguing in circles. First you claimed that the same process DID work for dollars, but you continue to claim that it can't work for Bitcoin. You are contradicting yourself.
"So I went ahead and settled this argument. I looked at the standard for Bitcoins. I saw that the standard indeed didn't establish or guarantee any sort of value for Bitcoins."
You have settled nothing. From USA Today:
"In essence, Bitcoin is similar to the "gold standard," the monetary system in force before modern central banking started to take root in the 1930s. Under the gold standard, each unit of currency was worth a certain amount of gold, leaving governments few means to increase the amount of currency in circulation."
From Paul Krugman (who I think is an incompetent fraud, but just in case you like him):
"In effect, Bitcoin has created its own private gold standard world, in which the money supply is fixed rather than subject to increase via the printing press."
From the Austrian school of economics:
"In short, Bitcoin addresses all of goldâ(TM)s shortcomings... In fact, since Bitcoin is a global network, it would retain its full value between banks on differing continents!"
(But of course, that would depend on a rational market... exactly my original point.)
Face it. Economists from EVERY school of thought disagree with you.
Seriously, I am done here.
"An intrinsic value for Bitcoins is not part of the standard for Bitcoins"
That's pretty laughable. Look it up.
"For example, I can make any number of copies of the Bitcoin market and dump as much computing power into those copycat hash coin markets as I want. They would have the same standard as Bitcoin since they use the same code."
If they use the same code, you would be generating Bitcoins!!! You could exchange them identically for other Bitcoins, because they would have valid Bitcoin hash values.
You are really reaching. You have already (indirectly) admitted that what I was saying was true. Now you're trying a different excuse that is equally invalid.
Why not just give it up?
"Unfortunately a fab is not a household appliance that you can have installed by next Tuesday. These things take time to plan and build and need to operate for a while before they crank out working chips. If Apple needs flash memory next year, this year is a little late to start planning."
But Intel and Micron have them, as well as the capital to build more. And they could use this as an opportunity to grow themselves and gain market share.
It's called competition.
Heck, even I did not expect it to not show up at all. Come on, Slashdot, please start using a standard character set.
"A equals B equals C does not equal A" is how that should have read.
Look... let me try to put this a different way.
You can turn this into either a mathematical equation, or a logical truth table. Either way, it comes out the same.
Regarding value, I am saying A = B = C = A. (And there *IS* an easy way to turn one into the other.)
You are saying A = B = C A.
(In case it does not turn out properly in Slashdot's weird character interpolation, "" is "not equals".)
"That still means that someone somewhere (for example, the central banks of other countries) could exchange dollars for gold even if it's not the general public. That still means that someone somewhere (for example, the central banks of other countries) could exchange dollars for gold even if it's not the general public. "
Quite right. That was the point I was making.
"The Bitcoin has no such feature. As part of the standard you can turn some amount of electricity and computing power into Bitcoins, but there is no provision for the reverse."
And this is where you are 100% wrong. Bitcoins can be exchanged for DOLLARS, which ALSO have an easily computed value against that same standard. People can trade in dollars. They do it every day. And you can EASILY turn dollars right back into that same computing time.
You are making my point for me. Strange that you haven't been able to see it for yourself.
"No, and one Bitcoin also can't be exchanged for one unit of computational work. That work was done in the creation of it."
I am getting tired of repeating myself. I have answered this argument elsewhere in this thread several times already.
Some time ago, when the gold standard was still in effect in the U.S., it was made illegal for U.S. citizens to exchange dollars for gold. Did that change the VALUE of that dollar? No, it did not, because the dollar could be exchanged for other things that still had the same valuation as compared to gold.
This isn't rocket science. It may not be practical to exchange Bitcoins directly for computation time, but Bitcoins can be exchanged for other things (like dollars, for example) that have the same VALUE compared to that computation time. There is NO difference. To deny that would be to deny clear historical examples. The dollar isn't the only one.
"Yes, that's what everyone has been telling you."
Yes, exactly. They have been telling me that they are ignorant of how monetary standards work. Thank you for admitting it.
"BitCoin is not backed by anything. There is no organisation or mechanism that guarantees that if you have one BitCoin you can exchange it for something else."
Yes, it is backed by something. And as I have shown just above, the ability to directly exchange has no bearing on its value, as long as it can be exchanged for other things of that same value. We have many, many examples of exactly this same thing.
You aren't arguing anything new here. So how should I reply?
If you read the original statements made by the (anonymous) person or persons who created Bitcoin, you will see that it was indeed designed to have a VALUE as defined by that computation time.
I understand the difference between cost and value. But you should understand that a monetary standard defines value, not cost.
An example I have used elsewhere in this thread: when the dollar was on the gold standard, that defined its value, not its cost (the COST of printing a dollar at that time had no relationship to its value).
In the same vein: regardless of the cost of a Bitcoin, that computation time was defined as its value standard, not just its cost.
I have gotten to BOTH of your replies which made this claim, and I have answered them.
See my reply to your other post about this. No, I am not wrong. The fact that a direct exchange is impractical does not make it "not a standard". In fact, given the history of the gold standard in the U.S., this is a rather ridiculous argument to make.
"I have just defined the value of Slashdot posts to be one gram of gold."
Good. Then you are willing to exchange one /. post for one gram of gold? Fantastic! I have thousands of them.
Yet again, this demonstrates an ignorance of how monetary standards work. You can't just declare them and expect them to work. You have to back them up. In the case of Bitcoin, it is firmly backed up by the way Bitcoin was designed to work. That can't be changed.
Granted, it might not be the best choice of standard in the world, because its value standard can't be directly exchanged, but that doesn't make it any less of a standard.