4 ms·

What do you mean by pool IPs? edit: after your clarification, you can easily use tor, IP addresses can be easily changed, miner's don't have to use the same IP

What do you mean by pool IPs? edit: after your clarification, you can easily use tor, IP addresses can be easily changed, miner's don't have to use the same IP address, they can solve the block wherever they want and broadcast it from wherever they want. There is even satellite blockchain connections now. At exchange level, that's what I mean by on-ramp and off-ramp, that would only push exchanges to decentralized platforms and to black markets.

sodality2 6y ago
For sure, but that would effectively kill BTC.. So much of it is due to institutional investment it would probably halve overnight.
- rawtxapp 6y ago
  > So much of it is due to institutional investment it would probably halve overnight. Which is why I really doubt the gov would ban it. Especially now that many gov members understand it somewhat (Gary Gensler, head of SEC, used to teach blockchain course at MIT, many senators are publicly holding, etc). But regardless, BTC was very much alive when it was trading at 1$, so I wouldn't really equate dead/alive with price, it would just hinder adoption.
  - baby 6y ago
    Adoption of what?
  - morpheos137 6y ago
    Outside of speculation, money laundering, black markets, and grey market remittances what real world use cases does Bitcoin have today? Gary Gensler taught a course on blockchain at MIT? So what. What does he understand? How to make a decentralised cyclical Ponzi scheme? That is the "store of value" use case that is now being touted since medium of exchange and unit of account are basically non-competitive with traditional (read: real) currencies. Issac Newton bought into the South Sea bubble. Did that mean the bubble was credible? Did that mean Newton "understood" it or was he merely suckered in by the hype? Anybody who is trained in economics who thinks Bitcoin is a serious useful, thing as opposed to an Ponzi is probably somebody who has a financial, professional, or social interest in Bitcoin "succeeding." See regulatory capture. For the past 20 years regulators have been basically asleep in a lot of areas in America. They woke a bit after the financial crisis 10 years ago but "too big to fail" and bailing out the banks (moral hazard) showed they were not serious about doing anything unpopular but salutary. Likewise now regulators are tolerant or supportive of blockchain bullshit simply because it is popular. Similar thing has gone on with driverless cars. The technology is obviously not economically viable (much less technically) and yet at every step in the way has been enabled by regulators. State DMVs should never have issued autonomous car permits, because the technology is bullshit. Yeah I am sure after billions of dollars of sunk costs Waymo can navigate some geofenced area of Phoenix / Chandler. So what? Were is the "innovation" if the "AI" driver is more expensive and less universal than a human driver? If autonomous navigation is a tractable problem why not ships, planes, trains before cars? Planes have more degrees of freedom so are less likely to hit something in seconds if they make a mistake. Same for ships. Trains are bound to rails. Cars have to stay on the road but the road is not systemically cleared (as rails are) and there is nothing mechanically binding the car to the road. Driverless cars are the hardest vehicle class to automate, and yet they were taken seriously. When people will drive a cab for under $10 a hour I don't see how AI that costs 10s of thousands of dollars to do a worse job can compete. When money is cheap, bullshit proliferates.

sodality2 6y ago

For sure, but that would effectively kill BTC.. So much of it is due to institutional investment it would probably halve overnight.

rawtxapp 6y ago
> So much of it is due to institutional investment it would probably halve overnight. Which is why I really doubt the gov would ban it. Especially now that many gov members understand it somewhat (Gary Gensler, head of SEC, used to teach blockchain course at MIT, many senators are publicly holding, etc). But regardless, BTC was very much alive when it was trading at 1$, so I wouldn't really equate dead/alive with price, it would just hinder adoption.
- baby 6y ago
  Adoption of what?
- morpheos137 6y ago
  Outside of speculation, money laundering, black markets, and grey market remittances what real world use cases does Bitcoin have today? Gary Gensler taught a course on blockchain at MIT? So what. What does he understand? How to make a decentralised cyclical Ponzi scheme? That is the "store of value" use case that is now being touted since medium of exchange and unit of account are basically non-competitive with traditional (read: real) currencies. Issac Newton bought into the South Sea bubble. Did that mean the bubble was credible? Did that mean Newton "understood" it or was he merely suckered in by the hype? Anybody who is trained in economics who thinks Bitcoin is a serious useful, thing as opposed to an Ponzi is probably somebody who has a financial, professional, or social interest in Bitcoin "succeeding." See regulatory capture. For the past 20 years regulators have been basically asleep in a lot of areas in America. They woke a bit after the financial crisis 10 years ago but "too big to fail" and bailing out the banks (moral hazard) showed they were not serious about doing anything unpopular but salutary. Likewise now regulators are tolerant or supportive of blockchain bullshit simply because it is popular. Similar thing has gone on with driverless cars. The technology is obviously not economically viable (much less technically) and yet at every step in the way has been enabled by regulators. State DMVs should never have issued autonomous car permits, because the technology is bullshit. Yeah I am sure after billions of dollars of sunk costs Waymo can navigate some geofenced area of Phoenix / Chandler. So what? Were is the "innovation" if the "AI" driver is more expensive and less universal than a human driver? If autonomous navigation is a tractable problem why not ships, planes, trains before cars? Planes have more degrees of freedom so are less likely to hit something in seconds if they make a mistake. Same for ships. Trains are bound to rails. Cars have to stay on the road but the road is not systemically cleared (as rails are) and there is nothing mechanically binding the car to the road. Driverless cars are the hardest vehicle class to automate, and yet they were taken seriously. When people will drive a cab for under $10 a hour I don't see how AI that costs 10s of thousands of dollars to do a worse job can compete. When money is cheap, bullshit proliferates.