Bincoin mining & GPUs
category: offtopic [glöplog]
Quote:
What the hell?
People got old, and decided that money and power are nicer than any subculture ethos.
Can I ask something. I dont understand much about all of this, but can we assume that one persons gain is another ones loss?
Which may not be the case, for example, for a job that produces wealth (ie offer your services as a till person or teaching children) ?
Even buying normal stocks contains an element of helping someone achieve a goal faster. Or have I got it completely worng
Which may not be the case, for example, for a job that produces wealth (ie offer your services as a till person or teaching children) ?
Even buying normal stocks contains an element of helping someone achieve a goal faster. Or have I got it completely worng
Quote:
I used to love that all my subcultures were nicely shielded from the greedy alpha-male financial bullshit others would participate in. We'd be making cool shit for fun! Let the neighbour worry about whether stocks are up or down today. Now, for reasons that still puzzle me, half of the people in my nice nerdy subcultures suddenly turned into my neighbour. What the hell?
In all honesty, none of this discussion belongs on Pouet. Wanna discuss stocks? Go to some financial site together with all the other greedy bastards.
Thing is, it's not that I don't like the occasional offtopic discussion, but for some reason this seems to bring out the worst out of people, which I find weird because in the grand scheme of things it's largely insignificant. I've seen discussions about ZX and football go more civilized.
Oh, I wasn't calling on your to lock or ban this topic or anything. You're moderating things just fine, keep it liberal! This isn't or ever will be a 4chan, I think we're good.
I was just trying to point out that "look ma I won the internet lottery" is the very antithesis of the creative all-for-fun all-for-free attitude that drives the demoscene. I felt that Guybrush showed some genuine surprise about the hostility he faced and I think that is partly why.
That said, I've seen discussions about football go less civilized. Damn, I've seen discussions about TRSI go less civilized :D
I was just trying to point out that "look ma I won the internet lottery" is the very antithesis of the creative all-for-fun all-for-free attitude that drives the demoscene. I felt that Guybrush showed some genuine surprise about the hostility he faced and I think that is partly why.
That said, I've seen discussions about football go less civilized. Damn, I've seen discussions about TRSI go less civilized :D
that reminds me! fuckings to Ajax!
Navis: I also don't understand much of economics. At least when I graduated from high school, I had the feeling that I had gained a good general education, but learned nothing valuable about economics.
I tried to educate myself in economics reading books from Ludwig von Mises, discussing with economists, analyzing the situation and concepts myself etc.
I share the impression with you that "one person's gain is another one's loss". That's how the world basically works. You spend money for goods and services. This money goes to someone else who can then invest it in whatever they want or need.
The absolute wealth never increases (except if you harvest raw materials). It is just the distribution of the "entitlements to certain portions of the total wealth" that changes.
Ludwig von Mises in this context proposes that a bargain can be a win-win situation for both since perhaps the one who buys the good or service values it more (as in: idealistic value) than the seller values the money he or she gets for it. (cf. "Subjective value theory")
I tried to educate myself in economics reading books from Ludwig von Mises, discussing with economists, analyzing the situation and concepts myself etc.
I share the impression with you that "one person's gain is another one's loss". That's how the world basically works. You spend money for goods and services. This money goes to someone else who can then invest it in whatever they want or need.
The absolute wealth never increases (except if you harvest raw materials). It is just the distribution of the "entitlements to certain portions of the total wealth" that changes.
Ludwig von Mises in this context proposes that a bargain can be a win-win situation for both since perhaps the one who buys the good or service values it more (as in: idealistic value) than the seller values the money he or she gets for it. (cf. "Subjective value theory")
Adok, you're forgetting waste. If you can accomplish something faster, better, quicker, or with fewer raw materials than before but get the same value outcome, you gain without causing anyone loss. This is the core reason why economy isn't zero-sum.
Trading is, however.
Trading is, however.
Quote:
Ludwig von Mises
If you're reading on economics and trying to understand world, it would perhaps be wise to read beyond the Austrian School. It's like trying to study society by only reading Ayn Rand.
Navis: If you buy a share when a company first issues it, you're giving that company money and helping them, yes. If you buy later though, you're buying 2nd hand... it's a bit like buying a movie or game second hand, you're helping the trader and the seller out, but not the studio. Although if a lot of people do that, the price rises, and that can help indirectly because if the company wants to raise more money it's easier / cheaper because they're "worth more".
Not sure if/how that translates to bitcoin though... to me it feels like you're paying somebody to waste a lot of energy, no actual product gets produced except the number you're paying for :/
Not sure if/how that translates to bitcoin though... to me it feels like you're paying somebody to waste a lot of energy, no actual product gets produced except the number you're paying for :/
omg, from bitcoin mining you got even to Mises! \o/
Preacher, which authors would you recommend?
first read keynes and then friedman ;)
Quote:
but for some reason
There's just too much received opinion. Nothing personal.
From my blog:
Quote:
Powerful Modern/Future Concepts of Computing
Ray Kurzweil's seminal book "The Singularity Is Near" (from 2005) contains several passages describing concepts of computing that radically differ from the traditional Von Neumann approach. I would like to quote from two especially interesting passages, which deal with DNA Computing and Reversible Computing, respectively:
DNA Computing
<<DNA is nature's own nanoengineered computer, and its ability to store information and conduct logical manipulations at the molecular level has already been exploited in specialized "DNA computers." A DNA computer is essentially a test tube filled with water containing trillions of DNA molecules, with each molecule acting as a computer. The goal of the computation is to solve a problem, with the solution expressed as a sequence of symbols. [...] Here's how a DNA computer works. A small strand of DNA is created, using a unique code for each symbol. Each such strand is replicated trillions of times using a process called "polymerase chain reaction" (PCR). These pools of DNA are then put into a test tube. Because DNA has an affinity to link strands together, long strands form automatically, with sequences of the strands representing the different symbols, each of them a possible solution to the problem. Since there will be many trillions of such strands, there are multiple strands for each possible answer [...]. The next step of the process is to test all of the strands simultaneously. This is done by using specially designed enzymes that destroy strands that do not meet certain criteria. The enzymes are applied to the test tube sequentially, and by designing a precise series of enzymes the procedure will eventually obliterate all the incorrect strands, leaving only the ones with the correct answer. [...] There's a limitation, however, to DNA computing: each of the many trillions of computers has to perform the same operation at the same time (although on different data), so that the device is a "single instruction multiple data" (SIMD) architecture. [...] It is not possible to program them [SIMD computers] for general-purpose algorithms, in which each computer is able to execute whatever operation is needed for its particular mission.>>
Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near, pp. 117 f.
Reversible Computing
<<Ultimately, organizing computation with massive parallel processing, as is done in the human brain, will not by itself be sufficient to keep energy levels and resulting thermal dissipation at reasonable levels. The current computer paradigm relies on what is known as irreversible computing, meaning that we are unable in principle to run software programs backward. [...] This act of erasing data generates heat and therefore requires energy. [...] Rolf Landauer showed in 1961 that reversible logical operations such as NOT (turning a bit into its opposite) could be performed without putting energy in or taking heat out, but that irreversible logical operations such as AND (generating bit C, which is a 1 if and only if both input A and B are 1) do require energy. In 1973 Charles Bennett showed that any computation could be performed using only reversible logical operations. A decade later, Ed Fredkin and Tommaso Toffoli presented a comprehensive review of the idea of reversible computing. The fundamental concept is that if you keep all the intermediate results and then run the algorithm backward when you've finished your calculation, you end up where you started, have used no energy, and generated no heat. Along the way, however, you've calculated the result of the algorithm.>>
Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near, pp. 130 f.
It is most likely that these two approaches can be combined together, resulting in massive SIMD processing power without dissipation of energy. That would be ideal for cryptocurrency mining, which is nowadays done using massive arrays of GPUs that generate a real lot of heat (that's why these mining farms are usually located in cold places such as Iceland or Russia).
Of course Kurzweil also writes about Quantum Computing, a concept I am a bit more familiar with already. It is true that Quantum Computing will, on the long run, be the greatest revolution of all.
Quote:
Quote:but for some reason
There's just too much received opinion. Nothing personal.
All opinion is received though.
Quote:
All opinion is received though.
I disagree, but I suspect it's on philosophical grounds. To me, received opinion consists of arguments from authority: repeating someone else's statements as if they were fact, or without doing fact-checking. It's a faith-based action. Kinda lazy, IMHO. Bad engineering.
Informed/educated opinion comes from facts, and when questioned, can refer to facts. It's skeptical, and evidence-based. Maybe this shouldn't be called 'opinion', but it's the diplomatic thing to do when you disagree with someone.
And how do you know they never fact-checked or did their research and came to the same conclusion? That's the part that bothers me.
Don't listen to authority, listen to some angry guy shouting on the internet.
Also: ask ten people a complicated question and you get ten different answer on what the facts of the question are.
Also: truth springs from argument amongst friends
...and Bitcoin crying in the corner, misunderstood, forgotten...
http://science.orf.at/stories/2895604
Use deepl.com for translating.
Quote:
Bitcoin und Co. behindern Suche nach ET
Der Boom von Kryptowährungen wie Bitcoin wirkt sich auch auf die Wissenschaft aus: Forscher, die per Computer nach Signalen außerirdischer Intelligenz suchen, haben zunehmend Probleme, die nötige Hardware zu bekommen.
Use deepl.com for translating.
Quote:
Don't listen to authority, listen to some angry guy shouting on the internet.
That used to be my strategy, but he kept retweeting weird landscape photos about something called "Hookland" which I never understood so I unfollowed him.
but it's restoring now.. time to buy some before the definite crash (a put at 11k is probably smart)
Well, it is possible that the turning point has been reached and from now on, Bitcoin will continuously increase in value again. If it reaches double the current value, then purchasing some Bitcoins now might be a bargain. But again, it's all speculation.