4 ms·

Its not competing, it prints money to reward people for voluntary work. Witch attracts people who would not do the voluntary work. And it attracts gamblers who

by noxer 6y ago

Its not competing, it prints money to reward people for voluntary work. Witch attracts people who would not do the voluntary work. And it attracts gamblers who throw real money at it in hope of price gains. So essentially it gives money from gamblers to "voluntaries" although very very likely the gamblers and the "voluntaries" are mostly the same people. So its basically just screwing over gamblers with the pitch that their loses are used for something somewhat useful. While at the same time some small group of people probably enriched themself along the way.

nathias 6y ago
How is it screwing over the gamblers? Why would it be a problem if people got rich?
- noxer 6y ago
  Why would they get rich if they give money to pay people for research in exchanges for worthless tokens? The research, even if it leads to something good for humans, does not add any value to the token. The token only has a value because gamblers speculate on a higher price in the future. The higher price can only be reached if more new gambler speculates on an even higher price and so on. We have a finite amount of gamblers so this can not go on forever and make everyone rich. Instead each wave of new gamblers makes the previous rich. But each wave has to be larger which untimely means the last and largest wave will be screwed over. Which Im totally fine with as long as people know the risk of being that last wave. The problem is on the side line there are people who never risked to be in that last wave because they simply printed the tokens and sold it. Like for example the devs that paid themself with these tokens thus inflating the supply which basically steals value form everyone who holds the token.
  - nathias 6y ago
    Exchange value as such has value only because of speculation, so what, nobody gets rich solely on their merit. Of course all that are cyrpto speculators are aware of the risks, people holding dollars aren't. So your main problem is with devs, the only ones who are actually doing work not just contributing machine work? All these 'concerns' are true to a much greater degree for all other economy, yet when it comes to crypto people are so giddy to pile on with their moral outrage based on their superstitions, I find it morally outrageous.
    - noxer 6y ago
      You would think they are but no, people actually believe in the nonsense that these token somehow store something of real value. You may have seen the BTC is a battery nonsense article. Same with this, some people think the token is somehow valuable because someone had to donate research to "generate it". >So your main problem is with devs, the only ones who are actually doing work not just contributing machine work? Its actual programming sure, but it has no real use therefore no real market value. The whole system exists because it pays for itself. Its kinda like a fake financial perpetuum mobile that was started with a money printer, attracted a lot people and convinced them to gable. It now keeps going but it actually sucks money from outside in people just dont see it. >All these 'concerns' are true to a much greater degree for all other economy, yet when it comes to crypto people are so giddy to pile on with their moral outrage based on their superstitions, I find it morally outrageous. Well I hold crypto since 2013. I'm not against it at all. I also have no moral problem with people gambling. This is just a useless project. There are plenty more, in fact almost all of them are but the post is about this one coin so I gotta point out the nonsense of this one. And this one is hefty one because it doesn't even try to have a use-case.
      - nathias 6y ago
        I don't get it then, of course it has market value that is the 'issue'? Devs usually sell their work as premine, if they can that's the market value of their work thus far, right? I don't get what this project is doing wrong that wouldn't apply to all crypto, I think what it is doing right is making PoW into actually useful computation, which is great I hope we see much more of this, but not perhaps just for reasearch BOINC projects but also for cloud computing etc. thats where the real value of PoW imo is ...
        noxer 6y ago
        Okay lets go with the premise that it does it wrong like all other crypto. Now what? Its still wrong? How is this even an argument? And more so how is it an pro argument? Its not less wrong or something its exactly the same wrong. >I think what it is doing right is making PoW into actually useful computation... PoW is used for decentral consensus. Its super bad at this but somewhat works anyway. FBA consensus does not need PoW so in general we dont need PoW for a bitcoin like system. FBA system exist since like 2013 or so. Using PoW for something good is still objective worse than not using PoW for the system at all. Else we could add some PoW to literally everything. Now even worse than that is using PoS (objectively worse than FBA) and then add PoW/PoR for no reason at all (now you have gridcoin). It doesn't try to be a better bitcoin because if it would there would be no reason to add any kind of PoW since its not needed. The work/research is not used in the consensus mechanism at all. Its a PoS system with a PoW/R money printer attached. The whole thing obviously doesn't come from bitcoin evolving somehow into something better. It comes form BOINIC devs jumping on the blockchain train because why not. It allowed them to print incentives at no cost to attach people to donate they CPU power. Its literally a money printer to attract donations its ridiculous. If you would say someone that they get a printed griddollar bill for every dollar donation people would laugh. But somehow if you add a bit blockchain flavor it fools people to do exactly that and worse people are even willing to buy the griddollar bill.
  - roboticmind 6y ago
    Developers are not making any new Gridcoin. The only compensation the developers get is through transactions from the foundation address[1] which only gets and has gotten coins from 1) people sending coins to it and 2) the one time transaction for unconverted coins from Gridcoin-Classic in 2014 (which was not a good idea in my view, but it's too late to reverse that). The research does bring value because people can like the idea of receiving something that came from the fruits of scientific work. That has some degree of value to people even if not literal value you can exchange for. Speculative prices exist as with many things, but that is not the main purpose nor should be the main purpose of Gridcoin. I'd agree that no one should be trying to enrich themselves in this because that's not what it's about [1] https://gridcoin.us/wiki/foundation.html https://gridcoin.us/wiki/foundation.html
    - noxer 6y ago
      It doesn't matter if they create new coins, they may use some bags that are already there that changes nothing at all. If it pays a dev it will be sold so the dev was paid by previously printed coins and the circulation supply will be inflated. >The research does bring value because people can like the idea of receiving something that came from the fruits of scientific work. Thats a nice fairy tale but no, the research adds absolutely no value to the token.
      - roboticmind 6y ago
        The devs have mostly not sold coins. See for instance one of the core devs, Jim Owens, who still has over a million Gridcoin and continues to run BOINC and earn more from even just that (and has been running BOINC since BOINC started over 18 years ago). > That's a nice fairy tale but no, the research adds absolutely no value to the token. Maybe this doesn't make you value it any more personally, but that doesn't mean others don't. Where things come from make a big difference in value of a thing. A famous artist making a painting and someone less known making the same painting will be valued quite differently by people. As well some people value (not talking about price) PoW cryptos less (or even negatively) because of environmental concerns stemming from where the new coins come from. Even just not having the negatives from concerns of energy going to useless work makes its value different I think this is conversation about value is going to go in circles, so I think we can agree to disagree on this

by noxer 6y ago

nathias 6y ago

How is it screwing over the gamblers? Why would it be a problem if people got rich?

noxer 6y ago
Why would they get rich if they give money to pay people for research in exchanges for worthless tokens? The research, even if it leads to something good for humans, does not add any value to the token. The token only has a value because gamblers speculate on a higher price in the future. The higher price can only be reached if more new gambler speculates on an even higher price and so on. We have a finite amount of gamblers so this can not go on forever and make everyone rich. Instead each wave of new gamblers makes the previous rich. But each wave has to be larger which untimely means the last and largest wave will be screwed over. Which Im totally fine with as long as people know the risk of being that last wave. The problem is on the side line there are people who never risked to be in that last wave because they simply printed the tokens and sold it. Like for example the devs that paid themself with these tokens thus inflating the supply which basically steals value form everyone who holds the token.
- nathias 6y ago
  Exchange value as such has value only because of speculation, so what, nobody gets rich solely on their merit. Of course all that are cyrpto speculators are aware of the risks, people holding dollars aren't. So your main problem is with devs, the only ones who are actually doing work not just contributing machine work? All these 'concerns' are true to a much greater degree for all other economy, yet when it comes to crypto people are so giddy to pile on with their moral outrage based on their superstitions, I find it morally outrageous.
  - noxer 6y ago
    You would think they are but no, people actually believe in the nonsense that these token somehow store something of real value. You may have seen the BTC is a battery nonsense article. Same with this, some people think the token is somehow valuable because someone had to donate research to "generate it". >So your main problem is with devs, the only ones who are actually doing work not just contributing machine work? Its actual programming sure, but it has no real use therefore no real market value. The whole system exists because it pays for itself. Its kinda like a fake financial perpetuum mobile that was started with a money printer, attracted a lot people and convinced them to gable. It now keeps going but it actually sucks money from outside in people just dont see it. >All these 'concerns' are true to a much greater degree for all other economy, yet when it comes to crypto people are so giddy to pile on with their moral outrage based on their superstitions, I find it morally outrageous. Well I hold crypto since 2013. I'm not against it at all. I also have no moral problem with people gambling. This is just a useless project. There are plenty more, in fact almost all of them are but the post is about this one coin so I gotta point out the nonsense of this one. And this one is hefty one because it doesn't even try to have a use-case.
    - nathias 6y ago
      I don't get it then, of course it has market value that is the 'issue'? Devs usually sell their work as premine, if they can that's the market value of their work thus far, right? I don't get what this project is doing wrong that wouldn't apply to all crypto, I think what it is doing right is making PoW into actually useful computation, which is great I hope we see much more of this, but not perhaps just for reasearch BOINC projects but also for cloud computing etc. thats where the real value of PoW imo is ...
      - noxer 6y ago
        Okay lets go with the premise that it does it wrong like all other crypto. Now what? Its still wrong? How is this even an argument? And more so how is it an pro argument? Its not less wrong or something its exactly the same wrong. >I think what it is doing right is making PoW into actually useful computation... PoW is used for decentral consensus. Its super bad at this but somewhat works anyway. FBA consensus does not need PoW so in general we dont need PoW for a bitcoin like system. FBA system exist since like 2013 or so. Using PoW for something good is still objective worse than not using PoW for the system at all. Else we could add some PoW to literally everything. Now even worse than that is using PoS (objectively worse than FBA) and then add PoW/PoR for no reason at all (now you have gridcoin). It doesn't try to be a better bitcoin because if it would there would be no reason to add any kind of PoW since its not needed. The work/research is not used in the consensus mechanism at all. Its a PoS system with a PoW/R money printer attached. The whole thing obviously doesn't come from bitcoin evolving somehow into something better. It comes form BOINIC devs jumping on the blockchain train because why not. It allowed them to print incentives at no cost to attach people to donate they CPU power. Its literally a money printer to attract donations its ridiculous. If you would say someone that they get a printed griddollar bill for every dollar donation people would laugh. But somehow if you add a bit blockchain flavor it fools people to do exactly that and worse people are even willing to buy the griddollar bill.
- roboticmind 6y ago
  Developers are not making any new Gridcoin. The only compensation the developers get is through transactions from the foundation address[1] which only gets and has gotten coins from 1) people sending coins to it and 2) the one time transaction for unconverted coins from Gridcoin-Classic in 2014 (which was not a good idea in my view, but it's too late to reverse that). The research does bring value because people can like the idea of receiving something that came from the fruits of scientific work. That has some degree of value to people even if not literal value you can exchange for. Speculative prices exist as with many things, but that is not the main purpose nor should be the main purpose of Gridcoin. I'd agree that no one should be trying to enrich themselves in this because that's not what it's about [1] https://gridcoin.us/wiki/foundation.html https://gridcoin.us/wiki/foundation.html
  - noxer 6y ago
    It doesn't matter if they create new coins, they may use some bags that are already there that changes nothing at all. If it pays a dev it will be sold so the dev was paid by previously printed coins and the circulation supply will be inflated. >The research does bring value because people can like the idea of receiving something that came from the fruits of scientific work. Thats a nice fairy tale but no, the research adds absolutely no value to the token.
    - roboticmind 6y ago
      The devs have mostly not sold coins. See for instance one of the core devs, Jim Owens, who still has over a million Gridcoin and continues to run BOINC and earn more from even just that (and has been running BOINC since BOINC started over 18 years ago). > That's a nice fairy tale but no, the research adds absolutely no value to the token. Maybe this doesn't make you value it any more personally, but that doesn't mean others don't. Where things come from make a big difference in value of a thing. A famous artist making a painting and someone less known making the same painting will be valued quite differently by people. As well some people value (not talking about price) PoW cryptos less (or even negatively) because of environmental concerns stemming from where the new coins come from. Even just not having the negatives from concerns of energy going to useless work makes its value different I think this is conversation about value is going to go in circles, so I think we can agree to disagree on this