/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>23246108
>waste of energy
i don't necessarily have anything against proof-of-stake and its goal of reducing a network's energy usage, but one could easily argue that proof-of-work incentivizes the actualization of both energy-efficient computing, and low-cost/high-efficiency power generation techniques

>>20594717
if this is pasta, i've never seen it before.
you're undoubtedly better off selling and putting some of your gains in crypto—everything that's currently pumped by the government IS eventually going to tank, unless they adapt to the crypto economy
to be fair, apple probably will adapt—but that all depends on whether there are brains in the heads of their diversity hires
if they don't adapt, they'll have a lot of money backed by nothing more than a welfare state, and a lot of chinese resources (people can say whatever the fuck they want about china—at large, they lack the genetics necessary to dominate the world; they don't fundamentally grasp that their principles would sooner have them destroying those among them with the most potential for greatness than they would be able to lay the ball clamps on america)
you stand a way better chance betting whatever you want on chainlink, ETH, and BSV (see pic related for why; post in pic was written before the bcash/bsv hard fork, but summarizes why PoW has as much potential as it does pretty good)—and enjoying the fuck out of yourself with whatever you don't reinvest

>>17526247
>>17526260
it takes literally only a few days worth of infrequent deductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that the proof-of-work consensus model that had existed in bitcoin prior to blockstream's intervention is an extraordinarily sensible way to make a currency that does, in fact, have actual, fundamental value—and in fact has equally as much actual, fundamental value as it does protection against attacks on the network

you're not necessarily "wasting" power if you're making it so that anyone who wants to destroy the network or steal everyone's money has to either use a massive bank of the current meta in mining hardware and still "waste" as much power as the entirety of the network's other miners are, or has to literally come out with an actual breakthrough in computer technology or an unprecedented algorithm exploitation of such a caliber as to enable them to achieve half of the network hashrate with this new technology (presumably at less net cost than the first option).
arguing that bitcoin would be made better by incorporating proof-of-stake, or arguing that bitcoin is made obsolete by proof-of-stake are arguments befitting of clown world.

>>17454092
everything you say, i regard as the words of an economically illiterate person

>>15274934
you dumb fuck
to sign up for the paris agreement is to kill yourself, and your country (and in the case of the west, this would be the only countries that are full of people that give two fucks about the global environment anyway)
we're getting to the point where our nations are run on nuclear, you impatient leftist faggot; bitcoin mining practically guarantees a private nuclear revolution
show the world how virtuous you are through leading by example, following the paris agreement yourself
let's see how you enjoy living like a third worlder rather than doing as the white man does, and overcoming the limitations of natural resources by inventing ways to generate or replenish the resources that you need

>>14995844
>>14996217
thank you for this information, anon
to get an idea of how exaggerated the dangers of some nuclear materials are gives me great hope
may we all make it, and at long last be free from government control

>>14733646
okay this is really really really super ffffucking epic
TRuuuuUUUUUMP YOU FUCKING BOOMER
PROOF-OF-WORK CRYPTOS ANNIHILATE EVEN GOLD IN TERMS OF INTRINSIC VALUE
WHY ARE BOOMERS AND 95% OF OTHER PEOPLE SO MOTHERFUCKING RETARDED

IF THIS POST GETS DUBS I'LL FUCKING POST FURRY GURO

>>11856088
faggot

>>11833334
i thought /sci/ was supposed to be a high-IQ board
>global warming
even if global warming is real, satoshi's proof-of-work model is a fucking godsend for incentivizing the creation of highly efficient, decentralized energy generation devices
left-wing politics are an utter fucking joke

>>11587219
see pic related

>>11587352
>>11587479
same for you, stupid motherfucking communist

>>11509682
network hashrate is the combined hashrate of all miners on the bitcoin network
the higher the hashrate, the higher the difficulty (which is adjusted every two weeks)
the higher the difficulty, the more difficult it is to mine bitcoin at a profit using the same hardware at the same electricity cost, going from a lower to a higher difficulty

basically, higher difficulty = increased mining costs, which—generally speaking—translates to increased market costs
my argument in favor of this is that, objectively speaking, if you want bitcoin, you either have to set up your own mining rigs, or you have to buy bitcoin for the going rate
at the moment, unless you live in one of the very, very few areas of the world where electricity costs are low enough to justify buying hardware and taking all the time to mine to get the amount of bitcoin that you want, it's far more feasible to buy it at the market rate

bottom line is, if you hold bitcoin and the difficulty goes up, this is a very good thing for you
i would argue that hashrate, and difficulty (which effectively doubles roughly every four years because of reward halvenings, regardless of hashrate) are the two major factors in pushing up bitcoin's price, and hashrate continues to climb significantly—even with crypto slipping on just a few hundred dozen or so banana peels on its way to the $100 trillion marketcap
volume matters, of course—but to argue that any fiat currency on earth is an objectively more desirable or intrinsically valuable asset than bitcoin or bitcoin cash is to make the argument that a relatively trustless currency that rewards miners for increasing the objective value of the network (especially in the case of BCH) is less desirable than centrally-controlled monopoly money

tl;dr - keep buying and holding bitcoin
but, really, you should buy and hold bitcoin cash too

>>11282310
because a miner who has better equipment gets more bitcoin
they simultaneously raise the difficulty of getting more bitcoin, which typically raises the inherent value
proof-of-work cryptos—especially bitcoin—are the exact, precise opposite of marx' shitty, society-destroying ideas

>>11068683
you have, in fact, helped me. such figures are dazzling; we truly are the early adopters of a technology that will cut the throat of the system that enables the vampiric relationship that we suffer at the hands of globalists; sovereign money is competitive money, in every sense of the term.
this is a race to the top, and we found the rocket before takeoff.

>>10929060
people really have no fucking clue how ridiculously this is gonna advance us
by having even just one bitcoin, you're granting yourself immense future power

>>10725047

>>10703824

>>10683646

>>10613363
just buy fucking chainlink already
i too have ailments in physical health that i'm trying to make it in crypto to cover, AND i've been a gurofag since i was at least 9
specifically, a fucking furry gurofag, at that
just. fucking. buy. chainlink. for extra bulletproofing in your financial security, buy at least ONE bitcoin cash, too.
christ's sake—i hate seeing you be as cute as you are, knowing that you're not in for a good time—and then watching you getting motherfucking justed with such a slim chance of there being a light at the end of your tunnel.

>>10540565

>>10532407
unironically this
the safest bets in crypto, regardless of which kinds of people are most powerful globally, are chainlink and bitcoin cash
you can also put money into decent coins that have very low market caps; there are a bunch of those, but unless you want some from me, i'll leave you with LINK and BCH as excellent choices

>>10521697
*buries you under 10,000 superhighways*
*produces flying car factories*
*competes in free market capitalist race to arm entire ethnostate with aerial tanks*

>>10299567
because bitcoin and other proof-of-work cryptos demand high electricity usage, miners will inevitably get to the point where they're developing things that we may imagine/interpret as on-site, small-scale failsafe nuclear power reactors that generate the electricity that they use for mining, as it will be much cheaper to do this than to move entire operations to places where (((taxes))) may be high but energy may be cheaper
such a device, having been conceived and created, could be reproduced and sold to consumers for any application that they may need; competition to produce a device at smaller and smaller levels would lead to breakthroughs in the scaling of such devices
now everyone has access to limitless, very efficient, low-waste and high-energy nuclear power
capitalism 101—if actual capitalism is allowed to play ball for once

>>10128518

>>10113312
yes m'y shitcoin will