On CNBC, Richard Ross, Global Technical Strategist at Auerbach Grayson, said Bitcoin "has transitioned from a trade into a scandal, which is like a duck transitioning to a l'orange; it's not a good thing."
Ross sees Bitcoin trading in a descending triangle with a base at the $500 level. Given that its peak was around $1,100, the triangle would project a downside of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. In this case, that would be negative $100.
"Now, that doesn't really make sense," says Ross. "But, given the recent history – given the MtGox scandal – I could see this thing at negative. It could actually cost you money to own this thing at the end of the day. It could just disappear that quickly."
"I don't know what good could really come of it at this point."
Also on the set was Gina Sanchez, founder of Chantico Global. She said of the recent IRS ruling that Bitcoin is not a money, "It's a terrible thing. This is already a really negative story, in my opinion. What this says is every time you make a transaction, you basically have to keep track of your capital gains – every transaction."
"Bitcoin as a currency doesn’t make any sense," she says. "You basically have a whole bunch of cyber geeks trying to tout themselves as a monetary authority. That's just not going to fly."
Video here.
"Bitcoin as a currency doesn’t make any sense," she says. "You basically have a whole bunch of cyber geeks trying to tout themselves as a monetary authority. That's just not going to fly."
ReplyDeleteGo back to sleep, citizen. Leave all those complex subjects like monetary theory to the experts. Be assured, they have your best interests at heart.
The global central bankster terrorists will never allow Bitcoin to succeed. They will print up their counterfeit and buy up Bitcoins and then hammer them using their psychopath MSM hyenas to force people to sell out to them. They do this with silver and gold markets as well.
ReplyDeleteThis plan will not work, buying and dumping is a zero sum game in Bitcoin land (finite supply). Only minds matter with Bitcoin.
DeleteWith Gold and Silver, they can create paper versions of these to "inflate" supply, which is also a zero sum game given a long enough timeline, but works in the short run. This works over no time period with Bitcoin.
Seriously Wenzel? This is relevant commentary?
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeleteYeah, the largest distributed computing network in the history of the world will just up and disappear like a far in the wind.
Great analysis.
"largest distributed computing network in the history of the world"
DeleteI call bullshit on this. What is your proof? If it was the "largest" how did the recent DDOS attack cripple it?
Bullshit!
Blockchain currently has the network power of 526,553 PetaFlops
Deletehttp://bitcoinwatch.com/
The previous record holder was the Folding@home network, which, as of (Feb 2012), had the ability to compute 8,588 TeraFlops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects
A petaflop is the ability of a computer to do 10^15 floating point operations per second, a teraflop is the ability to compute 10^12 operations per second.
Bitcoin makes all other distributed computing projects look like a joke. All the supercomputers in the world could not equal the power of the bitcoin network.
Here is just one source. And this was last year, it is much bigger now.
Deletehttp://qz.com/84056/the-bitcoin-network-is-now-more-powerful-than-the-top-500-supercomputers-combined/
Though you could try Google for more.
"largest distributed computing network in the history of the world"
DeleteAgain, this is YOUR quote. You've just tried to obfuscate it by changing the bar to "computing power".
Do you think we are all stupid?
There are currently as I type this 685 nodes connected doing these calculations, and while the computers themselves are powerful, spawned by this bubble in Bitcoin causing malinvestment in computers that do calculations for the benefit of something that has questionable value(we haven't had long term stable price indication of Bitcoin yet, have we?), what happens if all these calculations end up supporting something with increasingly less value to those that invested in mining them? I'd say it will be a classic "boom & bust" Austrian cycle.
Anyway back to my point, which is your obfuscation:
There are currently 685 nodes connected in the Bitcoin network, let's look at the "# of active processing units" column in your wiki link:
Here's some comparisons:
ABC@home: 9866 (2012)
Climate Prediction: 27,158 (2012)
Colatz: 10,089 (2012)
Einstein@home: 5 mil!+ (2012)
and the list goes on and on forever....Bitcoin isn't even close to these other networks in being the "largest distributed computing network in the history of the world".
Now, if you want to revise your statement to say "Bitcoin is the most powerful distributed calculation network in terms of processing power.", I'd be fine with that.
In fact, it demonstrates how lunatic the whole thing is in that the Bitcoin calculations are not clear in their value, where at least many of the other networks have a particular problem that is being solved outside of its own existence.
It also demonstrates how vulnerable Bitcoin is to ANOTHER DDOS attack because it's NOT the "largest distributed computing network in the history of the world".
Actually, you are the one who is obfuscating. He said "computing network", which to me is synonymous with "calculation network". You are the one changing the object of discussion to "nodes", which would be "comput-ER network", which is not what he claimed.
Delete"He said "computing network", which to me is synonymous with "calculation network".
DeleteOh bullshit. "Largest DISTRIBUTED computing network"
Look up the word "distributed" and get back to me. What's next Clinton, are we going to debate what the definition of "is" is?
Are you going to try to convince me that the word "ultraviolet blue" actually means just "blue" because you conveniently disregarded the word "ultraviolet"?
Do you really think a man who can't define the word "distributed" could get your panties in such a bunch?
DeleteYour the one who is bullshit. Is the network not distributed? It is just not distributed enough for your preference.
"Your the one who is bullshit. Is the network not distributed? It is just not distributed enough for your preference."
DeleteLet's look at the comment AGAIN genius:
"LARGEST" What does that mean?
"DISTRIBUTED" What does that mean?
"COMPUTING" What does that mean?
"NETWORK" What does that mean?
I'm going to try to distill it down for you:
"The most in size, quantity, degree, etc" "occur throughout an area." "the act of calculating" "any netlike combination of filaments, lines, veins, passages, or the like"
So here we are. Does Bitcoin "occur throughout" the internet more(largest!) than "any netlike combination" of "calculating" devices?
No, it's quite clear, it does not.
I pulled all the above definition straight out of the dictionary. If you have an argument, argue with those defining words.
So it's not your inability to define "distributed" that has my panties in a bunch, it's your overall inability to read AND understand a sentence.
You are confusing which word "Largest" is describing. He is saying that it is the "Largest Calculating Network, which is also distributed". You want to claim that he is claiming that it is the "Largest Distribution of a Calculating Network" or that it is the "Largest Network of Distributed Comput-ERS" and your not even sure which one you think it is [Both of which you correctly state are NOT true]. It is the first meaning that he was claiming and it is TRUE.
DeleteWho can't understand a sentence now Wenzel as Anonymous 3:32 pm?
First, this is not Wenzel.
DeleteSecond:
"He is saying that it is the "Largest Calculating Network, which is also distributed". "
Maybe he is, then he should write the sentence that way. You seem to have the ability to read his mind, is "him" you or are you just guessing?
Let's look at the word order, diagram the sentence and see if we can figure out what he wrote versus what he meant:
Word order:
"largest distributed computing network"
My claim: "largest" is referring to "network".
Your claim: "largest" refers "distributed computing network"
"Largest" is a superlative adjective:
http://www.k12reader.com/superlative-adjectives/
He's already blown the rule grammatically, but let's try to see if we can make it work anyway: A superlative adjective is suppose to compare three objects, people or places.
Is "distributed" any of those? No. Is "computing"? No. So what do we have left? Well look at that, just my claim of it only referring to "network"!
Holy shiiaaaat!
Let's look at your own comment for further elucidation:
" Is the network not distributed? It is just not distributed enough for your preference. "
So you acknowledge that the distribution is the issue, but falsely state "for your preference". It's not my preference that is the problem, it's his claim that the network is the "largest".
You actually knew this yourself instinctively, by your own writing, yet are so emotionally bent out of shape over someone pointing out his inaccuracy that you couldn't even recognize that you, yourself knew what he meant.
But hey, don't bash Bitcoin, right?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. There's no shortage of negative opinions out there but Bitcoin will be around a lot longer than these folks.
ReplyDelete