Wrong. Central? lol. They are arguing about something that in part could be bs (as in very wrong) but not doing it intentionally with bs behavior everywhere to never lead to any clarity over things just permanent trolling animosity and false analogies. Those that intentionally argue over known bs are not scientists, they are career hunters or obnoxious mfers and hurt the process.

I dont recall in all my past experience in the process any widely defined ego trolling bs games and attacks of other people's ideas dominating all the experience. The majority of the time it is simply an exchange of details and math and suggestions of what to read and the work others have done , questions asked both directly out of curiosity and genuine interest for real or rhetorically to argue a counter point etc. It also involves blackboards or whiteboards and some basic respect for each other and the process (ie insults not thrown and belittling comments all the time). There is some bs ego crap involved too on occasion among some and even all eventually at some point but its not usually dominating the entire thing and certainly not excessively experienced between the best ones, because predominantly they are confident people that do not need to trash others to feel personally superior. It is not bs behavior when a new idea gets little acceptance, its the reluctance to abandon the old more familiar ideas and it can lead to friction but it is not a malicious type over petty things of the theory. And certainly you do not see that when something is at its start as an idea.

Pretty funny stuff, post more, por favor.

Tether

Let's keep in mind that no one ever actually discusses the merits of anything in science anymore. You just say something and everyone nods their head in agreement. They've even completely abandoned checking for errors in another's work, and no one even dares to run an experiment to check the veracity of an idea.

It works the same way in math as well. If someone claims that 2+2=5, then 2+2=5 it is. Same with philosophy and economics and engineering. All statements must be respected as being true simply for the fact that they were uttered. To demand proof or point out weaknesses of ideas is completely rude and unacceptable in all academic endeavors. Where reality and an idea disagree, it is reality that is trolling and incorrect.

Using critical thinking skills and evidence as a measure of truth has been forbidden since the Academic Congress Resolution of 1995 determined that having an idea is equivalent to the veracity of that idea, and that confidence in the idea is further proof that it is true.

Having an idea doesnt mean its a correct idea. But you work to improve the idea and find if true or learn why it doesnt work so that you can have better ideas that do work , you do not work to instantly demolish it with insults and no arguments.

Like wtf argument is the insult with Newton and south sea company? Where is the connection?

I jokingly said i am going to create a coin to start scientific society. That is the optimist in me. It do not have that design yet but i have the ideas to get there. You didnt attack any of them in principle just threw random trolling insults like always. Of course it can work if done properly.Why? Because all human societies have used currency so it does work up to a point. So all i am saying is it can work even better by actually having its mining put further value to the world intentionally and not by accident like capitalism works. A scientific society will need to reward with some coin system work done in it that is beyond the common responsibilities for sustaining the system. What if it also rewards just being in the system and working for it by partial ownership of the coins produced over time.

I asked to make a list of the properties a currency must have to be superior to what used before. Surely that is possible to improve.

So exactly what is your problem here? Did i come out and publish a new coin system in detail and gave you a target? No.

For you a target is 95% of what i say since some time ago when this bs with you started.
You do it for fun because this is what you do Mr. Merry Easter. This is who you are in some way. The guy that sees trolling opportunities everywhere.


In science if you have an idea the others dont come out to troll you. They listen to it and offer questions and arguments not insults.

There has got to be something fundamentally wrong for example with a world that operates the way seen in 2018 the entire planet operates. You cannot deny that. You cannot deny we have morons for leaders and injustices and opportunity losses dont appear daily everywhere.

So trying to improve on that world is a defacto desirable effort that needs to be perfected not rejected with trolling endlessly.

Keep in mind that its no longer 50 but 12.5 or less by now;

"By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that produces new bitcoins owned by the creator of the block. This is the incentive for nodes to support the network.[1] It provides the way to move new bitcoins into circulation. The reward for mining halves every 210,000 blocks. It started at 50 bitcoin, dropped to 25 in late 2012 and to 12.5 bitcoin in 2016.[17] This halving process is programmed to continue for 64 times before new coin creation ceases"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_network#Mining

He thinks you are brilliant just like Newton, obv.

Also can I get some free masquecoins?

We can note an interesting observation here:

nah, you want oldsilverdollars

they will change the world and i promise not to pump n dump

That this wasn't obvious to him is almost as disheartening as his ideas on how ideas are improved.

I don't know what you mean by "I transit" value, but if you actually meant "intrinsic" value then you have misunderstood the concept. Nothing that has intrinsic value can ever lose its value.

He might have meant "intrinsic" in the same way that the cool kids mean "literally."

There is a concept of "intrinsic value" that is used in the context of talking about the value of a company or asset, and perhaps that is actually what the OP was talking about. This is not at all the same thing as the philosophical concept of intrinsic value though.

The concept doesn't work well. Rice has intrinsic value. Past that, things get difficult.

Suppose my PC miner was the only miner operating (maybe all the others catch a virus). What would be the expected time it would take for my PC to guess the right answer and win the bitcoin payoff?

So with all the miners in competition to be the first to guess the right answer, the more miners there are the less likely any one is to win the bitcoin payoff. So the more miners there are the more expensive it is to win the bitcoins. Therefore, as long as its cheaper to mine bitcoins than to buy them on the market, more miners should come into the mining competition until the cost approaches the market price. And visa versa, miners will leave the competition if the bitcoin market price falls. In other words, the market determines the price of bitcoins not their cost of production.

So the blockchain is "validated" when a miner guesses the right answer. Where is this blockchain living and developing while the miners are at work making guesses?


PairTheBoard

I might not be quite on point, but don't forget about the difficulty adjustment I mention in my earlier post. Eventually the network senses the hashing power trying to mine and adjusts accordingly. The regulation isn't perfect, but its is perfectly self regulating, in this regard.

This removes the political component that a basket of commodity prices would otherwise require. Bitcoin is an apolitical value target.

Isn't it?

lol anyone who buys bitcoin now is a pig to slaughter.

and no these digital currencies have no real vlaue, its just billionaires getting richer. mines getting richer, new currency CEOs getting richer.

rich people bored with regular investments looking to gamble bored money.

Dead wrong on pig characterization of such highly speculative instruments. It depends on your entry. At 14000 the other day was a decent entry and at 12000 in a panic that other day was greater. Now almost 17k again. It can be 13k next week and even 5k by the end of the month for all i care but it has the dynamic of a bubble and given recent action it has broken but didnt get trashed to nothing quickly in a panic selling, which implies it has legs still. It will easily go to 100k with the same probability it can go to 0 likely. The problem is that its unwise to invest a lot of money but it is very good to park there like 5-10% of your money in steps in any severe decline seen and especially other ones too like look at Ethereum (and more recent ones that may have some better designs) that was 700 and now 1050 days later.

Its a great time to risk in all these while still prepared to see everything go to 0. Just dont put all your available for that task money directly in one move there. Build it over time in panics and wait for the next 2x 3x up that is entirely plausible.

The same is true with all the "permanently bs valuation" high flying big name tech stocks out there . They can crash to 20% of their value at any point but they will go over 1 tril each eventually. If they can expand to mine and develop the solar system within the next 100 years you are only at the beginning of the greatest run in anything and the only problem is how to catch a permanent ride in the train without getting scared and while occasionally releasing money to cash to remain able to play all bubbles and growth success stories eternally from a position of exploitation of the crises not of panic.

Sure, the entire thread came about because a lifelong friend who is the highly regarded CEO of a financial planning firm told me that the digital currencies had ‘no underlying value’. I discussed this with another friend with a PhD in finance who said quite the opposite. Two people I trust, two different views.

So by intrinsic im referring to underlying or real value, in the sense of economic or other utility. And I’m sure there are a hoard of philosophical issues with all those terms, but the attempt is to focus on ‘underlying value’ as described above.

Usually in this discussion of "intrinsic" value for bitcoin people are really asking about the "commodity" value. The use case other than a money. What they don't understand is that as far as "commodity money" (Selgin reference) goes the optimal medium won't have an other use case. Having other use cases suggests there can be supply/demand shocks which isn't good for a medium of exchange.

Beyond that bitcoin doesn't need "underlying value" any more than paper money or fiat etc. We tend to think the USD is backed by guns etc. but really it is only an evolution of the medium of exchange which is underlied by the american economy.

Bitcoin gets its value from speculation that it will be useful in the future as a medium of exchange (whether low value low fees for lightning transactions or high value higher fees for large scale settlement).

It also has a specific function of a providing an inflation hedge, so if the other national currencies were very unstable value bitcoin would be worth, and it would not be worth as much if the currencies were stable (and not inflating etc.).

A very good primer essay is "shelling out" by Nick Szabo. He is who most believe is Satoshi. He has written a lot the subject and related subjects.

The value of the currency is also in making known to many people the way it works that will lead to innovation and better currencies and also enable transactions that were not possible before as fast and also in that it has already created elaborate technology to mine it that potentially can be used elsewhere too now. If bitcoin has started a revolution it deserves full credit.

So in principle a better design can target also these things like create a sequence of calculations that produce new technology to compete for them to mine more coins as reward and also lead to something useful by making these calculations a function of evolving success in some tangible progress projects (not just the current proof of work) that require computational power that is enormous currently and out of reach of individual companies or universities. This can be connected to many industries and applications.

The proof of work/hashing is purposefully otherwise useless. If they were otherwise useful bitcoin wouldn't serve as a (fairly) stable value target.

From Wiki on "Bitcoin Network"
----------------------------------
A rough overview of the process to mine bitcoins is:[2]
New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
Each miner node collects new transactions into a block.
Each miner node works on finding a proof-of-work code for its block.
When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
Receiving nodes validate the transactions it holds and accept only if all are valid.
Nodes express their acceptance by moving to work on the next block, incorporating the hash of the accepted block.
======================

As I understand this, for Bitcoin to work as a transaction medium it requires the miners to find the "proof-of-work code" that allows a new block of transactions to be validated by the other mining nodes. As it stands now, there are more than enough miners to accomplish this essential function for Bitcoin transactions. That's because the market price of Bitcoins rewarded to the miners motivates them to do more work than required to maintain the relatively sparse transactions. But will that always be the case? It seems to me there's no guarantee it will be.


PairTheBoard

Post 108. The political complement of the ICPI is removed by the difficulty adjustment algorithm. If the profitability of mining wanes then the difficultly adjusts and blocks get less costly to mine.

From what I understand, the difficulty level for discovery of the verification hash number only gets progressively harder. There may be more or less competition for finding it but its difficulty always gets harder. The point I'm making is the disconnect between motivation to mine based on Bitcoin market price, and adequate mining activity to support the volume of transactions.


PairTheBoard