If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Paul this sort of mining work (converting electricity into ledger entries). That's what I fail to get. If someone uses electricity to manufacture something, such as machine parts, it/they have value; even, in a more abstract sense, if someone generates literature, or software, or music, or a table of prime or Fibonacci (or ...) numbers, then that still has usefulness, even if "only" entertainment in the case of the literature or music. But I don't "get" how just doing sums _about bitcoins_ has value: the closest being the table of prime numbers, but those at least have their uses, if only curiosity value, outside the sphere of prime or Fibonacci numbers. The results of the bitcoin sums have no use except in the context of bitcoins. I suspect the original value, was equal to the electricity it took to produce the proof-of-work. [] Why? So someone decides to use some electricity to produce a proof-of-work: what use is that to anyone, _except_ in the cryptocurrency context? Why does the world _outside_ cryptocurrency think it is worth anything? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A leader who keeps his ear to the ground allows his rear end to become a target. - Angie Papadakis |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Paul this sort of mining work (converting electricity into ledger entries). That's what I fail to get. If someone uses electricity to manufacture something, such as machine parts, it/they have value; even, in a more abstract sense, if someone generates literature, or software, or music, or a table of prime or Fibonacci (or ...) numbers, then that still has usefulness, even if "only" entertainment in the case of the literature or music. But I don't "get" how just doing sums _about bitcoins_ has value: the closest being the table of prime numbers, but those at least have their uses, if only curiosity value, outside the sphere of prime or Fibonacci numbers. The results of the bitcoin sums have no use except in the context of bitcoins. I suspect the original value, was equal to the electricity it took to produce the proof-of-work. [] Why? So someone decides to use some electricity to produce a proof-of-work: what use is that to anyone, _except_ in the cryptocurrency context? Why does the world _outside_ cryptocurrency think it is worth anything? If the coins are too expensive, you can mine your own. If the coins are cheap, you would trade for them at an exchange. So initially, the coins would only have a value related to how hard they were to produce. When people start to use the coins for carrying out transactions, they need large enough quantities to do it. The trades then involve perceived value of the coins for their ability to move money in a flexible manner. The transaction price for Bitcoin, is somewhere in the order of $23 at the moment. This means you want to do $10000 transactions with the bitcoins. I think someone was daft enough to accept a $2 payment in Bitcoin, which means the schmuck agreeing to this, forks out $25 total to make it happen (most of the money is the transaction fee, a transaction fee a bank would be familiar with). Originally the idea was to support micro-transactions, like buy penny-candy with them. But the way that the degree of difficulty moved Bitcoins, may have had something to do with increasing the price you pay a third party to do the math to update the ledger. There are other coins that don't have as high a charge to do that (so penny candy transactions are feasible). I'm not a cryptocurrency expert, and I can't even handle the spreadsheet to figure out whether I should be mining them or not :-) I have a video card now, and it's not too loud, but I don't know if the $2 a month I could make would be worth the trouble. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Paul writes: [] I suspect the original value, was equal to the electricity it took to produce the proof-of-work. [] Why? So someone decides to use some electricity to produce a proof-of-work: what use is that to anyone, _except_ in the cryptocurrency context? Why does the world _outside_ cryptocurrency think it is worth anything? If the coins are too expensive, you can mine your own. If the coins are cheap, you would trade for them at an exchange. So initially, the coins would only have a value related to how hard they were to produce. But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X to anyone else? If it's a manufactured object, or piece of software in the widest sense (i. e. including literature, music, video, art, etc.), in other words, it has worth/use/attractiveness in itself, I can see that. But why would anyone buy it otherwise? I can't even see it as being like art; sure, if someone spends time/energy/effort producing a piece of artwork, then - _sometimes_ - _someone_ will buy it, either because they like it or because the "artist" has a reputation and the buyer thinks its value will thus at least hold, if not increase. But there it's due to the uniqueness of the object. When an artist produces several (such as a limited number of prints, say), the value drops. But - other than in its own sense - a bitcoin is not unique, certainly not unique to the originator: anyone can make one, given the right equipment and enough electricity. So I don't see the cost of production in itself as justifying the initial value. There are plenty of things that are worth less than they cost to produce - in the case of physical objects, many actually have negative value, in that it would cost something to get rid of them. [] Originally the idea was to support micro-transactions, like buy penny-candy with them. But the way that the degree of difficulty moved Bitcoins, may have had something to do with increasing the price you pay a third party to do the math to update the ledger. There are other coins that don't have as high a charge to do that (so penny candy transactions are feasible). Yes, I remember them being discussed - I think one of them had "bean" or "beans" in its name. I've not encountered any in practice, or at least if I have, they involved more hassle to set up than any convenience they have. The ordinary credit card now seems able to be used for transactions of well under a pound, though admittedly not fractions of a penny. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Astaire was, of course, peerless, but it's worth remembering that Rogers does everything he does, only backwards and in high heels. - Barry Norman in Radio Times 5-11 January 2013 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because | something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X | to anyone else? Money is weird stuff, isn't it? Bitcoin is hard to make and limited in supply. In those respects it's a lot like gold. Why was gold worth money? Mostly because it's both limited and immutable. So a few people got rich mining it, but mostly it served as a stable, neutral medium of transaction. Jewels are similar. The problem, though, with cryptocurrency is that the whole system is tenuous. A breakthrough in computing could make it worthless. It's being stolen as fast as it's being created. And minor problems can be disastrous, like the link I posted the other day about a whole pseudo-currency that's now worthless because the inventor died and didn't leave behind his laptop password. But maybe the most tenuous aspect is the lack of agreement. To be currency, everyone has to accept it and it has to be transferrable. With cryptocurrency, there's no gov't or organzation promising to stand behind it, and I can't go to the supermarket with a bitcoin and get change. I also can't go into a bank and exchange it for dollars. One can probably cash in, but the market fluctuates wildly. Given all that, it's really no more a currency than futures bets in the stock market. You might win money. You might not. But you can't buy groceries with your futures bets any more than you can with a lottery ticket. I think the biggest forces behind the trend are 1) investors who see a possibly lucrative gimmick and 2) millennials and technophiles who see anything techy as progress. The same people who think it's "cool" to buy things by waving their phone, oblivious to the privacy/security issues and the fact that such payment systems create an extra, superfluous, expensive middleman fee system. The banks are winning big with this anything-but-cash attitude. I know a young woman who used to work at CVS, a drugstore chain. I was in the store one day buying something. She tried to explain to the pitiable, dumb old man (me) that Square is much better than cash. She offered no reason why and was very doubtful when I explained that Square charges fees that eventually come back to her. She strongly believed it's a free service. Of course, it is for her. The merchant is charged the fee. I've noticed that about a lot of millennials. They have a naive sense of a golden age of tech, like Star Trek, where there's no racism, everyone cooperates, and nothing costs money. All you need is a cellphone to wave as you leave the store. Let them eat iPhones. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
On 07/02/2019 13:49, Mayayana wrote:
She tried to explain to the pitiable, dumb old man (me) that Square is much better than cash. Wow! For so many years I've thought you were a woman! ;-) -- David B. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
On 07/02/2019 14:19, David B. wrote:
On 07/02/2019 13:49, Mayayana wrote: She tried to explain to the pitiable, dumb old man (me) that Square is much better than cash. Wow! For so many years I've thought you were a woman! ;-) I meant to add that I'd never heard of "Square". How square am I?!! -- David B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because | something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X | to anyone else? Money is weird stuff, isn't it? Bitcoin is hard to make and limited in supply. In those respects it's a lot like gold. Why was gold worth money? Mostly because it's both limited and immutable. So a few people got rich mining it, but mostly it served as a stable, neutral medium of transaction. Jewels are similar. Yes, but gold and jewels have intrinsic uses as well: gold doesn't corrode, is useful for making jewellery (which lasts, and it is easier to work than stainless steel), and in the last century or so its low resistance and various other properties have become useful in the electricity and electronics industries. Jewels are useful (some of them) for cutting things, as bearings, and again in jewellery (long-lasting and visually appealing). [And briefly in lasers, though I think other methods are commoner now.] Bitcoins etc. have _no_ use or appeal (*) outside of bitcoins. [] But maybe the most tenuous aspect is the lack of agreement. To be currency, everyone has to accept it and it has to be transferrable. With cryptocurrency, there's no gov't or organzation promising to stand (That's the attraction for some people, of course - not the no-backing, but the no-control.) [] market fluctuates wildly. Given all that, it's really no more a currency than futures bets in the stock market. I'd say less so: there, at least, you know what's being traded, though I agree it's _mostly_ just big boys' gambling. (Not _completely_ - a knowledgeable person probably _can_ make a cautious living. More so in commodities than stocks perhaps?) [] I think the biggest forces behind the trend are 1) investors who see a possibly lucrative gimmick and 2) millennials and technophiles who see anything techy as progress. The same people who think it's "cool" *Yes, I suspect that's a lot of what drives the publicity. With your 1) as what drives the big bucks. [] service. Of course, it is for her. The merchant is charged the fee. I've noticed that about a lot of Indeed. There's been (in the last year or two) law passed (not sure whether it's UK or EU) that merchants are no longer allowed to charge more for any form of payment they accept; their only option if they don't want to pay the fee is not to accept that form of payment, which is likely to lose them custom. millennials. They have a naive sense of a golden age of tech, like Star Trek, where there's no racism, everyone cooperates, and nothing costs money. All you need is a cellphone to wave as you leave the store. Let them eat iPhones. Love it (-; -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Mike Jackson |\ _,,,---,,_ and Squeak /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Shame there's no snooze button [1998] |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'- on a cat who wants breakfast zzz '---''(_/--' `-'\_) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| Indeed. There's been (in the last year or two) law passed (not sure | whether it's UK or EU) that merchants are no longer allowed to charge | more for any form of payment they accept; their only option if they | don't want to pay the fee is not to accept that form of payment, which | is likely to lose them custom. | It's more sneaky here. Debit cards have become very popular, which is a method to pay directly from your bank account. It creates a pointless middleman in the bank. You pay your bank to pay the grocer. But you don't pay directly, so people don't see how wasteful it is. If I remember correctly, it started out with 65 cents being charged to the card holder for each transaction. People were furious. So now they charge the merchant instead. Thus, dippy millennials can pretend it's all free. But it comes out the same way. If Starbucks has to pay 65 cents to sell you a $2 coffee then they have to put the price up. The banks must be making amazing profits. We've also had some coercive laws about credit cards. For a long time in my state it was illegal to give a discount for cash. I guess that's the same thing you're talking about, but in reverse. More recently I've seen gas stations with discounts for cash, but now that you mention it, I'm not certain whether they take credit cards. I'm surprised that would happen in the UK or EU. You're so much more civilized about most things. And banning a fee for plastic or discount for cash is nothing more than arguing illegal lawmaking produced by strongarming by the banks. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
"Wolf K" wrote
| I think you're asking the wrong question. Nothing "has value." More | precisely: "value" is not a property of some object. It's entirely | subjective. That makes sense, but the idea of currency is precisely that value is objectified. A dollar is worth a dollar. People can disagree about whether something is worth a dollar, but we all agree that a dollar has a specific value. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:45:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X to anyone else? If it's a manufactured object, or piece of software in the widest sense (i. e. including literature, music, video, art, etc.), To change from one off-topic subject to another g, I've never seen any of those things referred to as "software" before, not even as "software in the widest sense." To me, none of those are software. Software, to me, is something that can't be touched; an arrangement of electronic bits that has some particular function. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
"Ken Blake" wrote
But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X to anyone else? If it's a manufactured object, or piece of software in the widest sense (i. e. including literature, music, video, art, etc.), | To change from one off-topic subject to another g, I've never seen any of those things referred to as "software" before, not even as "software in the widest sense." To me, none of those are software. Software, to me, is something that can't be touched; an arrangement of electronic bits that has some particular function. | Music also can't be touched. Software is as opposed to hardware. A non-concrete tool. Music is not software because it's not a tool. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:36:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Mayayana writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because | something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X | to anyone else? Money is weird stuff, isn't it? Bitcoin is hard to make and limited in supply. In those respects it's a lot like gold. Why was gold worth money? Mostly because it's both limited and immutable. So a few people got rich mining it, but mostly it served as a stable, neutral medium of transaction. Jewels are similar. Yes, but gold and jewels have intrinsic uses as well: Some, but very few. gold doesn't corrode, is useful for making jewellery (which lasts, and it is easier to work than stainless steel), Yes, but to me, jewelry has no intrinsic value. and in the last century or so its low resistance and various other properties have become useful in the electricity and electronics industries. Jewels are useful (some of them) Mostly just diamonds, because they are so hard. Neither my wife nor I own any jewelry (except for wedding rings and am inexpensive necklace or two for my wife) and almost nothing made of gold to speak of (both our watches have a very small amount of golden decoration, but that's it). No precious gems at all. What has value to some people doesn't have the same value to everyone. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:19:42 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote: On 07/02/2019 13:49, Mayayana wrote: She tried to explain to the pitiable, dumb old man (me) that Square is much better than cash. Wow! For so many years I've thought you were a woman! ;-) I'll do you two better. You also claim that I'm a woman, and you've claimed that PC Butts is a woman. You're batting 0 for 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20190205091456/https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php -- Char Jackson |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
On 07/02/2019 18:07, Wolf K wrote:
BTW, one of the reasons I'm primed to think about value, currency, price, etc, is that every time I travel to the UK I notice that for most consumer goods they pay in pounds what we in dollars, but a pound is worth more than a dollar. Exactly - Rip Off Britain! A CD selling for $12.99 in the US commonly sells here in the UK for £12.99. They do it because they (think) that they can get away with it, or, to put is slightly differently, in any given market they charge the maximum that they think the market will stand. These days, retail prices seem to have very little to do with cost of production! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe another reason your PC has slowed down
In message , Ken Blake
writes: On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 10:45:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: But what bugs me is: why do they even have that value? Just because something has cost someone $X to produce, why should it even be worth $X to anyone else? If it's a manufactured object, or piece of software in the widest sense (i. e. including literature, music, video, art, etc.), To change from one off-topic subject to another g, I've never seen any of those things referred to as "software" before, not even as "software in the widest sense." To me, none of those are software. Software, to me, is something that can't be touched; an arrangement of electronic bits that has some particular function. Others have explained why I used that term, but if you want some bit sequences: a kindle file, an MP3 file, and MP4 file, a JPEG file ... (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf To keep leaf vegetables clean and crisp, cook lightly, then plunge into iced water (the vegetables, that is). - manual for a Russell Hobbs electric steamer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|