(untitled)

>tfw no /cryptocurrency/ thread if you want to go full cyberpunk, you have to adopt crypto currencies. if you already did, welcome to the party! what did you adopt? are you just in for the sweet gains? do you already use them for trading goods? do you work with blockchains and ecosystems like ethereum or neo? tell me, lain!

>>5855 Cryptocurrency is just a bubble created by speculators. Interesting uses of cryptocurrency have all failed (e.g. Namecoin) while the soykafty ones have stayed. When the hype ends, a large amount of users will lose a large amount of money.

>>5856 i've heard the bubble-meme the first time in 2013 and here we are. of course it's interesting for speculation since it's not regulated and you can get into it pretty easily, gaining profits you would never archive on the traditional stock market. at this point, bitcoin is probably no great solution for payments since the fees are expansive and the network is slow af - but there are other coins, doing that just fine, like litecoin or even bitcoin cash. don't ignore projects like ethereum, neo or power ledger. they can actually change things for the better. and if you can gain some profits from it, what's so wrong about that?

>>5857 As far as I know, all these technologies have a maximum amount of coins that can be generated, either by having a hard cap or by making coins simply impossible to mine for the users. Once this cap is reached, I expect the value of the coin to explode and then plummet hard, reaching a value far lower than the value it had before the cap was hit. >don't ignore projects like ethereum, neo or power ledger. they can actually change things for the better Please provide examples as I can't imagine anything that could be done more efficiently by a blockchain than regular technologies. >if you can gain some profits from it, what's so wrong about that? Two things : waste and speculation. Doing meaningless calculations just for the sake of calculation like bitcoin does is incredibly wasteful and has a negative impact on our environment (this is the reason why I'm so disappointed Namecoin didn't take off). I consider speculation to be bad for multiple reasons, first there will always be a loser (the last guy who buys the thing being speculated on before its value crashes), it's a game the rich plays to get richer (the poor can almost never participate in it), it toys with the value of goods that non-speculators need.

>>5861 >Please provide examples as I can't imagine anything that could be done more efficiently by a blockchain than regular technologies. wikileaks, for an example. or that they are currently working on tampering proof elections via blockchain technology. projects like agriledger to prevent fraud with trading agricultural goods. the blockchain is an incredible tool and is the start of a "web 3.0". >Two things : waste and speculation. Doing meaningless calculations just for the sake of calculation like bitcoin does is incredibly wasteful and has a negative impact on our environment (this is the reason why I'm so disappointed Namecoin didn't take off). I consider speculation to be bad for multiple reasons, first there will always be a loser (the last guy who buys the thing being speculated on before its value crashes), it's a game the rich plays to get richer (the poor can almost never participate in it), it toys with the value of goods that non-speculators need. thats okay, but subjective and ideological. imho there are more ressources wasted by posting meaningless selfies on instagram and facebook than by mining coins.

>>5862 >wikileaks What exactly are you talking about? When typing "blockchain wikileaks" in my search engine I only found things like https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/julian-assange-uses-bitcoins-blockchain-proof-life/ , this really has nothing to do with the blockchain, Assange could have just read the title of a freshly-published news article. As for tamper-proof elections, I would like to prove that the blockchain can be used here. Elections need to be anonymous, but also make sure that only the allowed participants participated and that they only voted once. It's impossible to do with digital data. >agriledger >Small co-operatives are currently by far the best way to improve efficiency in developing countries and help farmers retain a bigger share of their crop value. Co-ops presently rely on paper-based records, verbal promises, and complicated agreements; this frequently causes critical problems due to lack of transparency, restricted access to price data, lying, graft, and corruption. >AgriLedger is a Mobile App that records and transacts incorruptible truth using blockchain technology. It is a complete framework of integrated services for delivering an even playing field to farmers and co-ops. This solid framework of trust allows everyone to know they are working, buying, selling, and sharing things according to a cryptographic “Book of Truth” that is utterly incorruptible. I don't see how that solves anything. It is already common knowledge that big retail corporations strong-arm small farmers into ridiculously small profits. There are already solutions, if people cared they would use them. >thats okay, but subjective and ideological. You're right, that's absolutely subjective. >there are more ressources wasted by posting meaningless selfies on instagram and facebook than by mining coins. Even if that was true (bitcoin uses KWh per transaction, a laptop on 24h/day will use 2KWh per day https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_laptop.htm ), that's beside the point. Another thing being bad doesn't make a bad thing less bad.

Money exists to facilitate the exchange of goods in society. Cryptocurrency has yet to really do that. As it stands, it's only a speculative market. Not to say that it's a bad thing, but until it becomes used in legitimate exchange of goods, it isn't worth investing in.

How do I buy bitcoins if I don't have a way to get my own?

>>5871 >wikileaks you're right, i've confused the hidden cablegate-message in the blockchain with something else. >agriledger it solves many things, like, once the documentation is written down in the blockchain, it can't be tampered with. sales records and contracts can't "vanish" or get edited. and since it's made to work globally and decentralized, it's probably the best solution to said problems - not even in the field of agriculture. >mining coins is a bad thing no, it's not. the problem is the lack of use of new energy like solar power. i really hope the rumor of musk entering powerledger is a step in the direction to change that. >>5878 >Money exists to facilitate the exchange of goods in society. Cryptocurrency has yet to really do that. As it stands, it's only a speculative market. Not to say that it's a bad thing, but until it becomes used in legitimate exchange of goods, it isn't worth investing in. said markets already exist and no, not all of them are centered around drugs, guns and cheese pizza. >>5879 buy via coinbase with cc or bank account or buy cash via localbitcoins.

>>5883 >not even in the field of agriculture. edit: not ONLY in the field (...)

>>5883 >sales records and contracts can't "vanish" or get edited They already can't vanish or get edited. When a contract is signed, the two parties have a copy of the document. If a country isn't able to force an entity to respect a written contract, it won't be able to force said entity to respect a digital contract either. > the problem is the lack of use of new energy like solar power This is very subjective. Instead of generating more power, I'd recommend learning how to use less. First world countries already use far more energy than is sustainable and we'll never be able to completely switch to renewable energy if we keep on consuming as much as we do now. Solar energy is soykaf, you have to deal with power surges, you don't get much during winter, panels don't live much longer than 20 years and pollute an awful lot and wind/geothermal energy isn't much better. Dams are okay but with droughts being more and more violent each year I don't think it'll be a viable option much longer and that's without thinking about the impact they have on the environment (flooding valleys, preventing salmon migration...).

>>5891 >They already can't vanish or get edited. When a contract is signed, the two parties have a copy of the document. If a country isn't able to force an entity to respect a written contract, it won't be able to force said entity to respect a digital contract either. my friend, you are VERY naive. if every party, especially in a business like this would always play fair, the whole problem wouldn't even exist.

OP here. i'm actually a little shocked that on a cyb board people have rather more problems with "muh, energy consumption" and "muh, capitalism" when cryptos offer a way out of state regulated money and bank controlled interest rates. with cryptos you can completley bypass the whole banking sector, trade directly and what the hell is the downside when your coin gains worth in fiat over the time? sure, it could crash, but so can fiat - and then the tax payer has to fix it out of his pocket. looks like not many remember 2008 and 2013.

>>5896 >people have rather more problems with "muh, energy consumption" .. when cryptos offer a way out of state regulated money Who controls the energy supply? Your backyard solar panel powered raspberry pi can't mine bitcoins in 2017.

>>5897 that is true, but not the point. your example is like saying "oh, my librebooted thinkpad with triskel is still part of the botnet because it does not run on my own solar panels only".

>>5898 >your example is like saying "oh, my librebooted thinkpad with triskel is still part of the botnet because it does not run on my own solar panels only". Not really. You specifically said "a way out of state regulated money". That's not possible if the state starts raiding bitcoin miners the way they raid pot growers.

>>5896 > sure, it could crash, but so can fiat The probability for each respective scenario is not even close. Bitcoin has already crashed a number of times, wiping out people's savings. And it's basically guaranteed to happen again. The reason is that most people who invest in it don't actually use it as a currency. And it will NEVER be used by the general public as a common currency because of the long verification times.

>>5902 Also, I should mention the fact that it's only decentralized if you download the blockchain, which most people don't or can't do. For them, they use centralized services to operate on the blockchain, which is not that much better than using centralized banking.

>>5900 so what? china derezzed exchanges and cryptos are still going. if they ban mining it would actually become interesting again to mine with smaller setups. since we don't have a "world government" you can't do that now and even if they would make cryptos illegal in general, it would find a way. actually, i think, crypto is now to big and to interesting to kill it off. >>5902 at this point using BTC als fiat replacement is stupid, yes. that's why they forked BCH (faster verifications, lower fees) and actually, if you wanna use cryptos to buy and sell goods, you rather use LTC and other smaller coins. don't forget, BTC is not the only fish in the sea. ad crashes: there was the "china bubble" in 2013 and it recovered. i can't remember the times if read "omg, btc is kill, you're going to be broke forever, jump off yesterday!" when all you had to do was hodling with iron hands and get them while they're low. >>5903 online wallets and exchange wallets are easy to use, that's true. if you're seriouse about crypto, you have a paper- oder hardware wallet. and services like coinbase are still better than storing fiat in traditional banks, because they won't rip you off your interest rates.

>>5896 >people have rather more problems with "muh, energy consumption" What's worse, living in a world where money is controlled by the state or living in a world where you can't even breath? Also, you're presenting state-regulated money as a bad thing but there are both advantages and disadvantages to having state-regulated money. >looks like not many remember 2008 and 2013 Looks like you don't remember 2008. The crisis was caused by people speculating on houses. The only reason it happened is because of speculation. This is exactly what is going to happen if everybody gets into cryptocoins with the sole purpose of speculating and that's exactly what is happening right now.

I put in $2k, grew it a bit then lost it while trading. That was about a month ago, still feel horrible about it. I want to get in but I'm not going to dump USD in again. Trying to think of some kind of SaaS I could create to ride the hype.

I've been meaning to get into bitcoin for a while now, not for trading but just to have some cryptocurrency set aside. Only issue is I'm not sure what the most secure way of doing so would be. How's this: >email and wallet set up under pseudonym >hardware wallet, kept on a flash drive >all bitcoin bought with cash in the mail

>>5933 The guys who made it big in the gold rush were those who sold the shovels.

>>5878 i just got paid in bitcoin so checkmate nigger

>ctrl-f "monero" >nothing why? this and bitcoin are objectively the only two important coins in existence right now.