disruptalot

14 ms·

91.
by disruptalot 6y ago
This is backwards. The energy needed for mining is the only reason the product (Bitcoin) can exist and make any sense.
92.
by disruptalot 6y ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Bitcoin is the best performing asset in the last 10 years yes, and there are clear reasons as to why. It's the store of value component of Gold and it can perform that role in a much better
93.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Valid point. I wouldn't say large swings is necessarily an indication of failure though. It is expected for Bitcoin to swing wildly because in contrast to gold, it's very accessible and in this age information is quick and erratic
94.
by disruptalot 6y ago
You can't. Along with energy, it's the most finite asset you have. Which is why it's critical that you store it in the best medium possible.
95.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Every position is more or less speculative. This is why "asset management" is a thing. Nobody knows what gold or fiat is going to do next either: - Fiat can be advertised in whichever way but ultimately there is no guarantee thing
96.
by disruptalot 6y ago
You wouldn't chase a store of value asset when money is being flooded into the system at record levels? Doesn't sound like very good advice. Indeed stocks, real estate etc. are being bought up for the same reason. Some people use
97.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Bitcoin without PoW has no value. It's the entire reason it works. Without expending a finite resource to produce another, you can't constrain a money supply nor prevent it from attacks. Governments would be unwise to ban a volunt
98.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Important to remember where these allegations originate from. Timnit Gebru was fired from Google after threatening to quit unless Google reveled the identities of the reviewers of her paper that was not received well while accusing them of
99.
by disruptalot 6y ago
What calculation do you propose? And which asset doesn't behave in this way?
100.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Bitcoin _is_ money though. It's only logical that buying into the concept will have returns. Yes people speculate on it, does it mean no one really believes in it's value propositions? This argument has very little weight when you
101.
by disruptalot 6y ago
"Relatively constant over a year" seems very loose don't you think? In the past year we've seen an unprecedented injection of money into the system. Presuming you're living in the U.S. have a look south of the borde
102.
by disruptalot 6y ago
When Bitcoiners talk about "inflation" they don't mean inflation of prices. They mean loss of purchasing power. Demand-pull inflation in fact is exactly what is happening with Bitcoin and bitcoiners would agree. There's
103.
by disruptalot 6y ago
To answer your question, you might for a second want to consider that your ideas about Bitcoin are incorrect.
104.
by disruptalot 6y ago
This is not how it works at all. A bitcoin block can have 0 transactions and still need the same energy to produce. a) Sending payments is not the only purpose of the network, it's issuance, it's security, it's to make the le
105.
by disruptalot 6y ago
This thread is nothing new. This exact sentiment has been repeated over and over for the last 10 years. From the angle that bitcoin is useless, it's easy to dismiss it as waste. The reality is that you live in world where people have d
106.
by disruptalot 6y ago
So is just about every other technology you can imagine. Namely air travel. Maybe you have clearer points. Probably they've been debunked 100 times over.
107.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Bitcoin is not simply transactions. - Bitcoin is an algorithmic and unchangeable monetary base. - It's an un-censorable, neutral global payment network - It's an immutable ledger. What are you familiar with to compare to such a th
108.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Why don't we just shutdown the internet? We can finally get rid of it all.
109.
by disruptalot 6y ago
I may have made some assumptions about you personally but the points still stand. You can speak for yourself with regards to your need for social media or platforming of any kind. Just remember that where we're going, there are no limi
110.
by disruptalot 6y ago
> Who on earth says they need or deserve a "public channel to express themselves"? This is prime "Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee". You're making a very easy generalization. Not any significant portion of p
111.
by disruptalot 6y ago
The same tired arguments as ever: miner death spiral, not scarce, ponzi, tether etc. But with a new timeline. I'm sure it'll happen this year!
112.
by disruptalot 6y ago
The existence of white supremacy and bogus academia is not mutually exclusive. Of course it depends how you want to define it.
113.
by disruptalot 6y ago
I find it odd from the opposite perspective. Why did the most clearly mission critical team in the company find social issues more appropriate at work than their job at hand? Surely if you could pick a single team who's work area doesn
114.
by disruptalot 6y ago
And then where do you go? Is there _really_ an alternative to the facebook and twitter where you have the same integration to the world? This is the key question with the simple argument that private companies are free to curate in a comple
115.
by disruptalot 6y ago
"banning LGBT content" entirely is the wrong argument here. There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private compa
116.
by disruptalot 6y ago
This interpretation of a platform turns Facebook into a publisher (section 230). Meaning, there is no limit to how much Facebook is obliged to curate it's content. Down this line, very quickly facebook becomes useless as an open commun
117.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Taking any demographic and extrapolating the actions of a few to the whole, then basing policies around that is "systemic racism". But not if you're white. News flash, you're not looking for equality with that mindset.
118.
by disruptalot 6y ago
Problem is, making accusation of such is a breeze. > Intentionally posting or disseminating libel, slander, or other disinformation. Let's face it. It's just a policy that allows them to expel anyone that doesn't fit their
119.
by disruptalot 6y ago
> Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences. > Gracefully accepting constructive feedback. > Showing empathy and kindness towards other community members. Yada yada, seemingly inclusive and tolerant then goes on to a
120.
by disruptalot 6y ago
That would be clearly in line with their mission?

More ›