They are different kinds of investments. Of course you can make more overall by day trading coins.
That does not remove the profitability of the mining that allows those coins to function in the first place.
We can incorporate the dense mining rig into the day trading you're talking about, pointing it at newer lower difficulty coins for the long term.
We can buy cheapcoin at fractions of a cent and make a stupid return if it pops even a little bit, but that cheapcoin won't pop without the miners.
The cryptocurrency technology is elegantly constructed to sustain itself. It's counter-intuitive, or just plain wrong, to take the profitability of both sides separately so hard.
If you run the real numbers, it's profitable.
You might not get rich. Who cares.
Paying some of the highest local market rates, my normal workstation with an outdated video card pulls in real actual profit by the real actual honest numbers.
But you must understand that this is like anything else. If you half ass it, you're going to lose a lot of time and money.
If I had the money to drop to build a high end, dense mining rig, then I would do it without hesitation.
I've been listening to people who don't put the time in tell me it's not worth it for over half a decade now.
Can you guys start shutting up if you don't want to put the work in?
The problem seems to be that you only see Bitcoin and the problems that it is facing, ignoring the rest of the cryptocurrency iceberg.
Bitcoin is less than 50 percent of the cryptocurrency market. The problems that are cited with it have been solved in a myriad of ways by various coins.
The volume of those coins is increasing every day, the ecosystem is blooming hard and most people just see Bitcoin and totally miss it.
Think ya'll missed the part where it's so hot that this company received an enormous amount of funding from tech giants.
The future that I've been dreaming of since I was a child is happening, right, now.
But I'm not going to try to convince you of that.
I don't think there's much point in doing the imagining for others.
Operating system developers have a long history of making drastic changes that replace stability with bullshit. The fact that we're still seeing them rewrite iOS for every release is an outright shit show.
These exploding hoverboards all have one thing in common - retail price tags that are a fraction of what a quality battery pack of the stated capacity actually costs.
Well, no, actually. Your well placed atmospheric EMP would stop the modern would dead in its tracks. The evidence of fiat-based production would be put under an awful lot of strain in that world.
This is what fiat advocates forget when they state that Bitcoin is as ephemeral as Bitcoin. Proof of Work is Proof of Productivity.
Guess what you can't prove in fiat.
gcc is a compiler that takes C code and turns it into machine code. and it's written in C. either you don't understand my point or you don't understand what the compiler does and why it is important.
It's a little depressing after all these years to look back on these iconic scripting languages and realize how little progress we've made in them. They are homogeneous, syntactical sugar over the C foundation that drives everything. The same libraries across all of these micro platforms has benefits, and the thriving ecosystem we have likely depends on the level of homogeneity among them. But at the end of the day it makes them all effectively the same with minor strengths and weaknesses on handling data in particular ways.
Could it truly be that we haven't seen progress since the procedural syntax less line numbers was added to BASIC?
It's impractical to bring out the power saw when the paring knife will slice the apple just as well. Why waste so much time writing a script for text processing in perl when you can just use sed to process the stream?
The reason this looks good to advertisers if that they're already hyperinflated clicks/impressions per payout beyond any question of sense, there's so little value in advertising that they NEED to be so aggressive.
The minuscule payouts from a browser based CPU miner look HUGE to them.
Mining can be profitable, full stop. We don't need to spend time with this contrived speculation, we can do the math and determine if our setups are profitable given our hashrates and power costs. There's no need to give any mind to those who don't take that step in their speculation.
Given that users have already had a frightful response when this has been rolled out on a number of websites recently, why does anyone think this would be a good idea?
Is there some special kind of user that you haven't already pissed off with it?
Of course. And I'll continue to fail them, simply because I can, the same way every other poster does.
If for no other reason than to get people continuing to think about what I've said and punch holes in it.
Thusly by being wrong we can be the most right of all.
I wish it weren't such a difficult discussion for people to have these days.
Personal biases are hard to kick when reading the research. We can look at the studies that point out that women are more neurotic, agreeable, etc while men are more aggressive, goal oriented, etc and that's colored by how we already feel. This guy takes the conclusion from them that women are inherently less capable than the men. I can read the same study and wonder if the reason why women are neurotic and agreeable is because men are that aggressive and how that dynamic has worked out on a cultural level. I can see the guy claiming these are inherent biological differences and think that while the inherent biological differences are significant the culture can't be written off to make that claim.
If it were merely a matter of what the studies say and conclude then the utter shit storms we see wouldn't be happening the way they are.
The original memo written by James Damore cites Wikipedia articles as sources, many of which have been flagged for problematic and incorrect sources. This is a serious problem with the point of view that James Damore has. This has been a serious problem in every discussion about the issue. You cannot make a claim, cite an unreliable source, then be surprised when others don't agree and there is a resonant backlash. This a problem among scores of articles referencing the kind of differences that the memo speaks about. They say it's backed by science but they don't cite the science that backs it, they cite more people making the same opaque claims.
There's your fake news in a nutshell. If you don't vet your sources you have no idea whether they're accurate. Taking the stance that agrees with you despite the apparently invalidity of the sources is bad science.
Slashdot Mirror
They are different kinds of investments. Of course you can make more overall by day trading coins.
That does not remove the profitability of the mining that allows those coins to function in the first place.
We can incorporate the dense mining rig into the day trading you're talking about, pointing it at newer lower difficulty coins for the long term.
We can buy cheapcoin at fractions of a cent and make a stupid return if it pops even a little bit, but that cheapcoin won't pop without the miners.
The cryptocurrency technology is elegantly constructed to sustain itself. It's counter-intuitive, or just plain wrong, to take the profitability of both sides separately so hard.
If you run the real numbers, it's profitable.
You might not get rich. Who cares.
Paying some of the highest local market rates, my normal workstation with an outdated video card pulls in real actual profit by the real actual honest numbers.
But you must understand that this is like anything else. If you half ass it, you're going to lose a lot of time and money.
If I had the money to drop to build a high end, dense mining rig, then I would do it without hesitation.
I've been listening to people who don't put the time in tell me it's not worth it for over half a decade now.
Can you guys start shutting up if you don't want to put the work in?
The problem seems to be that you only see Bitcoin and the problems that it is facing, ignoring the rest of the cryptocurrency iceberg.
Bitcoin is less than 50 percent of the cryptocurrency market. The problems that are cited with it have been solved in a myriad of ways by various coins.
The volume of those coins is increasing every day, the ecosystem is blooming hard and most people just see Bitcoin and totally miss it.
Think ya'll missed the part where it's so hot that this company received an enormous amount of funding from tech giants.
The future that I've been dreaming of since I was a child is happening, right, now.
But I'm not going to try to convince you of that.
I don't think there's much point in doing the imagining for others.
This is the track record of the Initial Coin Offering. And people keep putting money into them.
Operating system developers have a long history of making drastic changes that replace stability with bullshit. The fact that we're still seeing them rewrite iOS for every release is an outright shit show.
These exploding hoverboards all have one thing in common - retail price tags that are a fraction of what a quality battery pack of the stated capacity actually costs.
Bitcoin Gold is a shady operation. Here are their developers being called out for implementing a hidden fee in the software.
Well, no, actually. Your well placed atmospheric EMP would stop the modern would dead in its tracks. The evidence of fiat-based production would be put under an awful lot of strain in that world.
This is what fiat advocates forget when they state that Bitcoin is as ephemeral as Bitcoin. Proof of Work is Proof of Productivity.
Guess what you can't prove in fiat.
We are an infantile species on the power consumption and usage scale. This is just scratching the surface of where we're going.
Who writes machine code?
gcc is a compiler that takes C code and turns it into machine code. and it's written in C. either you don't understand my point or you don't understand what the compiler does and why it is important.
Yes, but something tells me that you do not.
It threw me back to Jack Sparrow.
You're the worst programming language I've ever heard of!
But you have heard of me.
It's a little depressing after all these years to look back on these iconic scripting languages and realize how little progress we've made in them. They are homogeneous, syntactical sugar over the C foundation that drives everything. The same libraries across all of these micro platforms has benefits, and the thriving ecosystem we have likely depends on the level of homogeneity among them. But at the end of the day it makes them all effectively the same with minor strengths and weaknesses on handling data in particular ways.
Could it truly be that we haven't seen progress since the procedural syntax less line numbers was added to BASIC?
It's impractical to bring out the power saw when the paring knife will slice the apple just as well.
Why waste so much time writing a script for text processing in perl when you can just use sed to process the stream?
The reason this looks good to advertisers if that they're already hyperinflated clicks/impressions per payout beyond any question of sense, there's so little value in advertising that they NEED to be so aggressive.
The minuscule payouts from a browser based CPU miner look HUGE to them.
Mining can be profitable, full stop. We don't need to spend time with this contrived speculation, we can do the math and determine if our setups are profitable given our hashrates and power costs. There's no need to give any mind to those who don't take that step in their speculation.
Given that users have already had a frightful response when this has been rolled out on a number of websites recently, why does anyone think this would be a good idea?
Is there some special kind of user that you haven't already pissed off with it?
Read what I wrote, not what your rightist puppeteers tell you to think?
Of course. And I'll continue to fail them, simply because I can, the same way every other poster does.
If for no other reason than to get people continuing to think about what I've said and punch holes in it.
Thusly by being wrong we can be the most right of all.
I wish it weren't such a difficult discussion for people to have these days.
Personal biases are hard to kick when reading the research. We can look at the studies that point out that women are more neurotic, agreeable, etc while men are more aggressive, goal oriented, etc and that's colored by how we already feel. This guy takes the conclusion from them that women are inherently less capable than the men. I can read the same study and wonder if the reason why women are neurotic and agreeable is because men are that aggressive and how that dynamic has worked out on a cultural level. I can see the guy claiming these are inherent biological differences and think that while the inherent biological differences are significant the culture can't be written off to make that claim.
If it were merely a matter of what the studies say and conclude then the utter shit storms we see wouldn't be happening the way they are.
The original memo written by James Damore cites Wikipedia articles as sources, many of which have been flagged for problematic and incorrect sources. This is a serious problem with the point of view that James Damore has. This has been a serious problem in every discussion about the issue. You cannot make a claim, cite an unreliable source, then be surprised when others don't agree and there is a resonant backlash. This a problem among scores of articles referencing the kind of differences that the memo speaks about. They say it's backed by science but they don't cite the science that backs it, they cite more people making the same opaque claims.
There's your fake news in a nutshell. If you don't vet your sources you have no idea whether they're accurate. Taking the stance that agrees with you despite the apparently invalidity of the sources is bad science.
It's interesting to me that in the transpired time the first stage boosters landing themselves stopped being a goal and started being reality.