Who uses Bitcoin for peer-to-peer payments? And the cryptocurrency ecosystem as it exists right now, far from allowing people to transact without third parties, is driving a cambrian explosion in third parties, because most people are incapable of transacting Bitcoin themselves.
Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that. From their FAQ:
Why are we pre-farming?
Chia has a novel business model to both, lower volatility of the coin and increase adoption. By loaning Chia and managing the interest rates of those loans as well as other tools like buying our stock with chia coins, we hope to lower the quarter to quarter volatility of the coin. To drive adoption, we intend to loan Chia to Global 5000 companies who will use it to pay their international vendors quickly, less expensively, and more securely. We also intend to use the strategic reserve to aid development and adoption. We plan to do things like invest in promising startups in the Chia ecosystem, potentially increase farming rewards during limited periods of time to spur additional farming, and fund corporations paying 105% of the value of their international payables in Chia instead of fiat currency.
Is Chia doing an ICO?
No. Chia is not planning an ICO. Instead, our goal is to take the company’s equity public on an American stock exchange. This way, shareholders can share risk and return with management with transparency and disclosure and we can use well understood corporate controls to make binding statements about how Chia Network intends to use the Strategic Reserve. The Chia digital money is meant to be a useful payment instrument and not an investment opportunity. Chia intends to complete a fully compliant SEC registered equity IPO and will come to market as market-timing is amenable after the launch of mainnet.
Bitcoin may not be what it set out to be, but how is that a bad thing? The market decided whatever it should be.
What bitcoin did is inspire creation of many, genuinely interesting currencies, some even learning from bitcoin's failings: Stellar.org that aims to form a new kind of backbone for instant worldwide asset transfers; Monero that enables anonymous payments; and MakerDAO that makes it possible to transact across borders with a stable digital-currency, DAI.
Banks (like eco, onjuno, dharma) and other financial instruments on the Ethereum network (like curve, aave, compound) are a reality today. The space is far more than just currencies. Besides, networks like Cosmos, Polkadot are going to enable an even richer crossover among various currency networks that today is exclusive to Ethereum altcoins via uniswap, mdex et al.
I agree that mining seems like a lot of waste but Delegated Proof of Stake and other advances aim to address those issues.
I take you're specifically interested in what's known as "DeFi" (decentralised finance)?
Multiple things going on on that front, but you could start here: https://archive.is/bJQt4 (coincentral); this video's a pretty good overview on Ethereum's DeFi ecosystem https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/k9HYC0EJU6E and this one on what's happened in just 2020 https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qFBYB4W2tqU
DeFi, today, is poised to grow beyond Ethereum. Check out cross-chain networks like Polkadot (https://archive.is/GZVlM) and Cosmos (https://archive.is/1pWHF). matic.network (now Polygon) is another interesting side-chain network that seeks to take Ethereum tokens cross-chain.
If you're looking to build a DeFi product on Ethereum, docs at 0x.org, aave.com are good places to start (since they integrate out of the box with decentralised exchanges like Uniswap, Balancer etc). Circle.com, Sendwyre.com, Simplex.com, and Nowpayments.io are some of the leading providers for fiat <-> crypto-currency transfer. I am sure Binance has some offering in this space too.
> We have academic papers and presentations that give detail about our new consensus algorithm and blockchain software. In 2019 we revealed our Green Paper outlining the construction of Proofs of Space and Time and illustrating many of the design choices of Chia.
> We have updated our consensus algorithm and you can review and commment on our working document.
> There is also a 2019 talk from Mariano Sorgente at MIT on how to achieve Nakamoto consensus with Proof of Space and VDFs.
> Bram Cohen presented at Stanford on February 2018 on Proofs of Space. Our advisors, Dan Boneh, Benedikt Bünz, and Ben Fisch published a survey of VDFs which are the underlying technology of Proof of Time. Lipa Long published an explanation of class groups that our Proofs of Time is based on. Bram presented Beyond Hellman’s Time-Memory Trade-Offs with Applications to Proofs of Space at BPASE ‘18 in January 2018 based on the academic paper and these slides by Hamza Abusalah. Ben Fisch gave a talk at BPASE 2018 in January 2018 on Verifiable Delay Functions. Bram spoke at Blockchain at Berkeley (which starts about 20:00) in March 2018 with slides. Bram gave a talk at BPASE 2017 in January 2017 on removing waste with Proofs of Space and Time (slides).
> Bram gave a talk at SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar about data structures for scaling Bitcoin with slides and Merkle Set code. Bram gave a talk at SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar about removing waste from cryptocurrencies.
I'm not your Bud, Pal.
But a lot is happening still.
Heck, I think some of those chains even serve a actual purpose, without the computational issues. Crazy right ?
As for Bitcoin, I hope the money in it trickle down to actual useful things.
But, trickling down. Well, we know how it goes .
But since this thread is about an altcoin: Almost no other altcoin enables me to run my own fully-validating node on cheap hardware. And that is 100% a requirement I have since the whole point of crypto to reduce trust to a minimum. I don't know about the details of Chia, but as far as I know most coins with "smart contracts" built into the blockchain require expensive full nodes, so I personally do not see much appeal.
You can say the same about people in adtech.
For example: a simple switch on my browser to turn on/off all ads would be much more consumer friendly, and would still allow consumers to find products if/when they wish to find them. And this is just a simple example that just popped into my head.
Why? Because by the very nature of storage, it is infinitely more profitable to farm only unused extra storage than it is to buy new storage specifically for farming. I'll follow with a more detailed explanation below.
Since the marginal cost of using extra space on a hard drive you already bought is near zero, this should theoretically drive the farming rewards for Chia so low that it's not economical to buy a hard drive specifically to farm Chia.
In contrast, consider compute. If I try to use extra cpu power on an average computer or server to mine bitcoin, compared to the high end GPUs and ASICs this extra amount of compute I have within my average computer is so small it would barely generate any rewards. Given that using more CPU also causes more power consumption, it also costs more.
So putting this together, due to the existence of specialized/more-performant hardware and the fact that using more CPU/GPU incurs a cost, most of the people buying high end GPUs (or definitely ASICs), are buying it primarily for mining. In contrast, with space, since it's always near free to use storage you already bought, and everyone is on a near-level playing field, the market is only profitable for those with no sunk costs. At least, that's just a theory.
Just a thought, but who knows. We'll see in time.
Viagra was originally developed as chest pain medication. Did it utterly fail, simply because a new use-case was unveiled?
Which begs the question, what is the new use case for Bitcoin? Some say digital gold, but only time will tell.
Everyone mines on GPUs because they are cheaper and casual dual purpose (play games and mine afk)
Aren't ASIC normally limited to a single algo as well?
Heh. I think you just unintentionally used this correctly by assuming there even is a new use case.
That was intentional?
Premined, just like Ethereum and all the other shitcoins.
The latter isn’t necessarily greed, lots of people just don’t have the good fortune to make a comfortable amount of money (as those of us in tech do) so are more susceptible to bubbles.
The people who can imagine and implement a novel new type of cryptocurrency certainly do
I wish it worked! It does feel like something out of a cyberpunk novel. I loved "Crypronomicon." There's nothing punk about Bitcoin anymore, though. IBM, the least punk organization in the history of mankind, wants to sell you a blockchain. The promise of Bitcoin is the idea that individuals, not large financial concerns, have the power. Coinbase just IPO'd for an eye watering amount of money on the premise that people who want to buy and sell Bitcoin are probably going to have to do it through them. What's less punk than an IPO?
Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency out there.
Besides, the fact that coinbase just had an IPO doesn't mean they control bitcoin, I don't need them or anyone else to move around cryptocurrencies however I want.
Bitcoin works well in plenty of ways. Bitcoin just doesn't work very well as a currency, but that ship has sailed and it's ok.
I've seen this comic, and the dog is melting in the next panel.
And that is exactly why I dislike it. At least among ones that I encountered cyberpunk is strongly dystopian.
> I don't understand how a forum called Hacker News is so dismissive of an invention that should be right up a hacker's alley
I hope that Chia dies and falls on its face before SSD and HDD will repeat story of GPU.
I like to use this resources for actually useful things, not gambling.
So far BTC-like stuff is centralized, just in a novel toxic way.
Back in the day when we were sitting in dark basements with big Unix beards drinking Jolt cola, we all dreamed of living in a crypto-anarchy, becoming cyborgs with chip implants and fully submerge in the Metaverse. I guess times have changed.
Cryptocurrency, the internet, mobile devices, huge powerful corporations, Anonymous, black hat hackers, hi tech protests like DDoS, electric vehicles, shady IT security companies, Moxie Marlinspike, billionaires going into space...
I know how buggy software is, I would not feel safe with it directly coupled to myself.
> living in a crypto-anarchy
I know how well communism went, I hope that next radical society reengineering will happen sufficiently far away to not impact me.
Which is all that is needed to create a fair bargaining position for the consumers.
It does allow you to have an "account" outside any jurisdiction, and allows you, given good opsec, to transfer huge amounts in transactions not controlled by any state. Like, millions of USD.
Bitcoin is obviously useless to pay for daily goods, like a coffee. But gold would be also impractical for such a case.
Crazy speculators pumping the value of bitcoin may look unreasonable, but again, for those who have millions (and maybe even billions) in bitcoin, they are weirdly... useful.
It does not, at any point in there, say that the benefit is to avoid state control. It talks about how the cost of requiring a third party in transactions discourages microtransactions, for instance (there are other touted benefits as well). But it's not an anarchist manifesto. And all of the benefits of Bitcoin listed in the original paper require it to be a useful medium of exchange. The Bitcoin paper posits that it should be useful for transactions _much smaller_ than a cup of coffee. It isn't. It so obviously isn't that even Bitcoin advocates can admit that.
Okay, so maybe you think that it's okay that Bitcoin doesn't meet its original goals given that it meets these other goals. But the goals you state, the lack of state control and the difficulty of seizure, are... like, Bitcoin does not put you the person outside of the state's law enforcement mechanisms, including the taxation people. Ironically, if Bitcoin was actually useful for small microtransactions, like the paper says it should be, that might actually be useful for avoiding state control. It's not! And nothing about Bitcoins makes them hard to seize if you are within the physical jurisdiction of the state.
Random fun fact: the EU Investment Bank just did a 100 mln bond issuance on Ethereum.
The financial rails of the world will be moving to crypto asset networks, slowly at first, and there is nothing that can stop this shift.
Like, from where I sit, Chia looks like it's trying to solve the unintended consequences of Bitcoin, which is a tacit admission from the Chia people that Bitcoin has those problems. It also looks like Chia has an easily foreseeable set of unintended consequences as well: doing to SSDs what Bitcoin has done to GPUs. It doesn't seem to me like the Chia people are worried about that, and I don't know why.
I understand your argument, but Bitcoin hasn't been mined on GPUs since 2011/2012. Broaden your argument from Bitcoin to "proof of work schemes" more generally, and from GPUs to "profligate (mis)use of resources", and it will land more effectively.
If you are against cryptocurrencies more broadly, inclusive of proof of stake and other more recent approaches that aim to address the resource consumption issue, then that position didn't come across clearly.
Bitcoin started the whole crypto craze, and etherereum wouldn’t exist without bitcoin.
And the eth (and who knows how many other coin) crowd certainly does still mine on gpus.
And is actively on the path to proof of stake.
Is this past the point of basic research?
Cold fusion has been on a path for 50 years.
At least for miners in a PoW system, there’s a pressure for some liquidity by miners selling to cover the mining costs.
Thoughts on a “HDD shortage” from an industry insider - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27008295 - May 2021 (106 comments)
SSD makers start warning that mining products like ChiaCoin will void warranty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001848 - May 2021 (381 comments)
Chia surpasses 1 exabyte of hard drive space - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26975734 - April 2021 (151 comments)
New Chia coin crypto with Proof of Space may create shortage of storage device - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26879278 - April 2021 (19 comments)
Chia Blockchain mainnet successfully launched today at 14:00 UTC - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26515025 - March 2021 (14 comments)
Overall, I am inclined to say that this is a submarine and HN is falling for it.
Regardless, more to the point of the article, the argument and moral panic rings hollow. Chia just incentives other people to store data for people who want to store data. The place, overhead and mechanism of data retrieval is different, but, still, someone wants to store the data there and they pay for it. So how then is this more of a threat than cloud providers for example?
Later Edit: I mistook Chia as having a similar approach as Filecoin, but, on closer inspection, it seems that they do not store data people want they just store data to prove it's stored and use that to distribute mining rewards. So I was wrong at this end. Still, I maintain my opinion this is a submarine.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email firstname.lastname@example.org and we'll look at the data."
We have that rule because it's extremely easy to fall into imagining this sort of thing based purely on a few data points one dislikes. In the absence of evidence, that's likely what's happening. Moreover, the submission histories of most of the accounts that posted those threads is evidence against what you said, and that information is public and trivial to check.
This is untrue, Chia requires wasting storage space to store pointless garbage.
Definitely not a submarine.
"People are buying hard drives to farm despite price increases, it must be profitable, maybe I should buy one too..."
The part introducing the term is at the beginning:
"Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms."
If all the usual crypto charlatans aren't "to the moon"-ing it, that is a strong indicator of value for me.
The reason it is getting play on HN and other tech focused outlets is because it is an interesting new project from the designer of BitTorrent, who clearly knows a thing about designing protocols.
I think you are confusing Chia with Sia
Not sure what is the proper etiquette if I realize my initial statement was false is some way, add a new paragraph addressing the issue or just edit the original post to reflect updated stance?
New paragraph could add confusion
Editing the initial post might make it seem like I'm trying to look smarter than I actually am.
That doesn't matter. It still generates buzz. People will pour resources into a crypto-currency even when it's established up front as a joke.
> don't break the site guidelines like this.
I take it the rule was triggered by the word "campaign":
>> So in other words, there's a campaign (centralized or not) to pump Chia on HN? :(
I pretty clearly indicated that I don't think it's necessarily a coordinated thing. It's more of a phenomenon than a "brigade" or "astroturfing", but what should we call it? What should I say? How should I feel about a disturbing trend that you've pointed out?
Furthermore, you've already shared your data, so there's no reason for me to email you about it per the guidelines. I appreciate the vigilance and hard work, but I think we can agree you're mistaken this time.
I'm suspicious that HDD and SSDs manufactures and/or merchants have been hyping it after getting jealous with how much money GPUs have been raking in.
every impression of this meme that results in someone's decision to avoid chia (which, had they never heard of the coin in the first place, would have been the outcome anyway) will be offset by a half dozen others who will spot a quick 10x return opportunity for themselves, even if they recognize that the long term result is a net negative for everyone else.
it's Streisand Effect rocket fuel.
I'm having the same issue with understanding proof-of-space. Could someone give a technical explanation for those of us that understand basic cryptography (but aren't professional cryptographists)?
So then where's the issue with SSD wear, and wouldn't it be more interesting for people to have spinning drives (for the better ratio of GB / $)?
> There is extra layers, Chia is actually proof-of-space-and-time, so that you can't win by faking proof-of-space with proof-of-work.
Is it because of this? So you'd have to print your lottery tickets often enough that a faster drive may help you?
The most efficient way to start your farm is to build your plot with a temporary drive (an SSD) and then move it to a destination drive (Spinning HDD) where the actual farming takes place.
The building of the plot is what does heaps of writes and reads and puts the wear on an SSD.
You absolutely can plot directly to Spinning Disk however it is slow and you will really be trashing the heads if you try and plot multiples to the same disk.
The solution is an enterprise SSD with proper endurance. If a consumer SSD doesn't state it's TBW then you can be pretty sure its not very much.
You do trade off for a slower read rate. If the rate of requests coming in is fast enough, your spinning drive/s may not be fast enough to go through the indexes for each one.
Say the network has seen 1TB of data before with hash H. It can generate a random number as a challenge, and request a miner to prove they have access to the 1TB worth of pre-image at the same time it has access to the random challenge. The only way for a miner to compute such a proof is to have the 1TB of data stored somewhere.
Resulting from (1) removing irrelevant details (details crucial for an implementation, but irrelevant for an initial mental model) and (2) making use of analogies built around already known concepts.
"Complex maths" is never an excuse to not find that explanation.
Disclaimer: I am a pure mathematician.
In Proof of Stake, the network (roughly!) allocates rewards for validating transactions based on the amount of coins you have, i.e., your stake in the network.
In Proof of Space, the network allocates rewards based on you proving that you are really storing the data you were supposed to store. If you fail to produce a proof for some data item the network expected you to have stored, you lose the reward.
Sort of? But you're usually not really storing data for proof of space. That's a different kind of system.
So it requires the dedication of some hard/rivalrous real resource, storage space, other than either strictly energy/CPU (PoW) or the protocol’s own tokens (PoStake).
See the Chia ‘Green Paper’ for more details.
Unfortunately, these have turned into the biggest plastic packaging lobby and have caused an explosion in the use of plastic packaging in retail. More plastic use is unfortunately a net benefit to those whose economic/financial incentives depend on it.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_S... -- "... The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber ... They became a sort of currency ..."
As for the reference you provide, note that the atrocities were at the time when private companies using private militias ruled the region that was the property of a private holding of Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld who at the time also was the King of Belgium.
It was the Belgian state learning of these atrocities that prompted Belgian state to annex the region and bring these to a halt.
It could be argued that indeed the public sector should have learned not to trust the murky amalgam of old and new capital
Bitcoin is proof of work, which of course requires a lot of electricity.
Some coins, like Neo/CutCoin are proof of stake, which basically let you stake some money, which I guess you can't spend and use that to handle transactions, so instead of running mining rigs, you just stake the money and earn a return. Ethereum is planning to move to proof of stake. Kinda like how your FDIC insured bank can loan your deposit out.
Chiacoin, is proof of space and time, IE proof of assigned storage through the use of stored data, plus a verified delay function (slow to calculate, fast to verify hashing basically). The latter part needs only one processor, so whoever calculates fastest is accepted, so you aren't running a bunch of miners racing to benefit.
I'm not sure that I see the benefit of proof of space and time except in the case of things like filecoin, where you are basically paid for storing stuff on your hard drive without changing it. Chia coin is, if I understand things correctly, just sticking random numbers on a SDD to "farm" them. I mean the VDF stuff is cool to be sure, but it seems like in the case of Chia it's just wasting memory space with random numbers rather then incentivizing storage of existing data.
Is there a better system than proof of stake, in terms of just not being absurdly wasteful in terms of energy or storage capacity?
For the purpose of responsible disclosure, I do have less than $20 bucks of ethereum atm, and that's the only amount of any coin mentioned above. I have no investments in the companies behind any of the above coins.
I just quickly checked DDS for a list of actual proof of stake coins, since I knew about proof of stake only as something that was happening eventually for ethereum, picked a random result on the first search results page, and then picked two choices randomly from the listed coins, using a rng.
I figured if I picked two ignorant options people would probably say that, but I'm comfortable being ignorant. Now I've heard of Cardano.
This seems like an ad for Chia disguised as a hit piece. It doesn't help that the author's only other article is trying to pump Dogecoin.
"Terran life took a sudden dramatic shift after the fall of Hominid dominance. The turning point appears to have occured when the sacrificial demands of Blockchain worship spiraled out of control after fuel-based offerings were supplanted by info storage based offerings. This, in and of itself, was not terribly harmful, but the model was used by the Cult of Aquaricoin. The so-called Water Miners enshrined a marketplace for non-fungible indulgences depicting popular figures. This was backed by a Proof of Potable Water algorithmic catechism, and swiftly resulted in total extinction for the species.
It is this researcher's opinion that we are fortunate the Terran Hominids had only just discovered space travel, for they very well could have extinguished the resources of our own homeworlds for such religious decadence."
You can run a node and sell bandwidth to people who want to proxy traffic through your node
Side thought is renting out your mobile device for peripheral testing. That's something I was looking for recently video/audio specifically.
Definitely, though: you join a market like this because you know what you are doing and what you are getting yourself into; I personally could not in good faith recommend that an end user sell access to their home Internet connection.
If my statement was incorrect (which by your half-acknowledgement I don't believe it was), then I am sorry for misrepresenting your project. A healthy dive into howtos for miners, and unwalling your garden, would clear that up.
But I do quite like the closing jab.
FWIW, I feel like there is nuance that is being lost in your sentence about whether your statement was somehow either incorrect or correct. My half-acknowledgement of the premise would to me indicate that neither absolute on such a statement could be "correct"?
The server--which is in that exact same monorepo you found, it being a monorepo and all ;P--can be easily compiled (or merely downloaded from the GitHub releases) and it doesn't take too much messing around with it to run it... as a developer (not an end user) You certainly don't need to be a "partner".
The client, also, will happily connect to you... if the user "opts our" of only using a list of people that happens to right now only include "partners". This is where I appreciate that the software--right now--has not a "walled" garden but a lightly-fenced garden: the difference is important, as anyone who wants to can go play outside the walls. This isn't like Apple or Facebook: the term "walled garden" simply doesn't apply.
The "half-acknowledgement" is, of course, that if not many people are playing outside the garden then you are likely going to be lonely. But as there is no wall, the project absolutely let's you sell bandwidth there... there just aren't many buyers. You see how that's different, right?
In some sense, being allowed to do something isn't a guarantee that it is a good idea. Imagine a world where anyone can make a restaurant, but almost all customers search for food on Yelp... is it true that only Yelp partners can sell food? No: anyone can sell food! But I appreciate--in that it isn't black and white--that it isn't exactly true that anyone can succeed at selling food.
And this is the rub, right? It is like the difference between a right to sell something and a guarantee of customers, which are related in a certain sense but aren't even slightly the same :(.
This is then why I wanted to ask after where you came to the quick idea that, with Orchid, one """can't become a "miner" (sell bandwidth) without becoming a partner""", as that statement isn't correct (but I appreciate neither is its opposite!!) in a way that makes me sad, as there are a lot of projects for which it is correct: where there are walls of authentication and permission or softwares that must be licensed... and I am very proud that Orchid isn't that?
That said, I feel like--with your emphasis on documentation (not in the passing way I mentioned it, which would include high-level discussion, but some expectation of "here is how to do it")--you are somewhat "moving the goalpost": instead of analyzing whether the software does or allows something, you are asking whether the project encourages something... and that is just very very different to me.
The reality is that--partner or not--you will probably be unhappy selling bandwidth as there isn't much traffic being purchased on the system right now, and I would rather not guide people down paths that will make them unhappy... particularly when I know that, if it were actually profitable, there would be a large cottage industry of third-party guides telling you how to do it ;P.
So, is deleting articles the new deleting vowels? facepalm
https://pkt.cash/ exists "built to incentivize the growth of infrastructure," and "PKT Network is designed to decentralize internet access around the world by enabling anyone to become an ISP." 
A key component of the PKT Network is cjdns (https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns).
A) Let everyone have their fair share of bandwidth
B) with DPI, choke other miners so I'm relatively better in the whole miners.
Also, bandwidth will be wasted just for the sake of proof-of-work instead of traditional work that have real values on its own.
Basically the designers saw how easily many Ethereum/Solidity contracts were hacked and saw that stateful side effects were the main culprit so they made their language have no side effects! Pretty cool.
My CS knowledge got really rusty, but I think it should be possible to put tight bounds on the computational cost of these, as well as statically guarantee that certain states cannot be reached, both of which would be very valuable in this case.
Yeah, I doubt that
Functional programming might makes it easier to detect flaws in your programs, but when there is billions at stakes and no recourse in case of a bug, you really want your program to be flawless.
1 point by theshadowknows 4 days ago | parent [–] | on: The Last Days of Satoshi: What Happened When Bitco...
Bitcoin and other crypto/alt currencies are so interesting to me. Partly because I do not understand them:
If I mow your lawn and you pay me in the locally accepted fiat then I can use that fiat to buy hotdogs and fuel for my lawn mower because the gas station itself will accept that fiat.
The gas station will accept that fiat because its vendors, creditors, and employees also accept it. And the chain goes on.
If however I mow your lawn and you pay me in bitcoin I'll need to find a gas station that accepts it. Many likely exist. But, how many of their vendors, creditors, and employees also accept it? Some, no doubt, but I'd wager not all would.
So, even though these currencies no doubt represent massive potential they're still somewhat limited in terms of adoption. Obviously this is becoming less true over time which I think is a good thing - competition isn't something fiat currencies tend to have to deal with, but they sure could use it.
My real misunderstanding is 'why' people accept these currencies in the first place. In other words - people accept a United States dollar because it is worth one United States dollar. However, it seems that most people accept bitcoin (or bitcoin fragments) not because they are worth some percentage of bitcoin but exactly because they are worth some amount of United States dollars. Is that true? Is the primary reason that bitcoin has become more popular that an investor can spend 10,000 fiat on it - wait a year - and then extract 15,000 fiat from it?
Some of us did. Last month marks 10 years since I was introduced to the community and registered on the bitcoin-otc. We bought and sold all sorts of random crap (food items, laptops, gadgets, one regular even paid people bitcoin to have them buy him lunch. A brief time existed where some of the more idealists expected bitcoin to replace Paypal. That obviously didn't happen.
Starting with Satoshidice gambling the network performance started to crap up and fees began to climb. Eventually it became worthless for any sort of fast/cheap transacting and everything centralized onto a few exchanges. Every asshole in the world has proposed ways to improve this issue, but with all the money sunk into bitcoin and a lot of arguments we aren't in a better situation today.
Now every naive person from 20-some year olds to 70-year olds are hitting me up and asking what I think of NFT's and the shitcoin of the week because they saw some heads on Bloomberg gushing over it and I'm just tired of it all.
I love positive volatility. Don't you want to make money?
Q1: Why would people accept these currencies in the first place?
I want to hold Bitcoin because of its monetary policy. It has a fixed, capped supply of 21 million BTC, whereas fiat can be printed at will. This property is what fuels the current hype, and the fact that central banks around the world are inflating money supply as we speak certainly helps the narrative. So for bitcoiners, money saved in fiat is likely to lose buying power over time, but in Bitcoin we see, on average, a steady increase.
Since I see Bitcoin as a superior form of money, I would certainly prefer getting paid in Bitcoin than in fiat.
Q2: Why do people that accept Bitcoin still denominate prices in USD?
Bitcoin is far from being an established currency, and it is still very volatile (though far less than a few years ago). Most of the population are not bitcoiners. The US are denominated in USD. So, until Bitcoin is both more stable and more popular, it is the most convenient to do what we're used to and denominate things in USD.
Q3: Is speculation the primary reason for Bitcoin's rise in popularity?
We're in the middle of a bull run right now, so probably? But if you zoom out and look at the price evolution over 5 years it looks different, and there is a steady growth.
Q4: Do people just want to increase their USD? ("spend 10,000 [...] and then extract 15,000 fiat")
Some do for sure, but I don't see much appeal in exchanging hard money into money with arbitrary monetary policies. Bitcoin tripling in value does not change the initial motivation I had to buy it, so why sell? Of course, if I want to buy something with btc then that amounts to selling some. But my motivation to be in Bitcoin is to protect my time, the most limited resource I have in my life, from inflation, and that does not change with price.
1. Main advantage of it is that it can't be stopped.
2. Since it can't be stopped - it allows to evade any regulation from the government or the bank. If it replaces banking system - you can move around the globe with your capital and spend it the way you like. This is not the case at the moment
3. Bitcoin could become a currency if it was fast enough and fees were low enough. Which was quickly discovered to be not true since the complexity increased, transactions slowed down and no one agreed to upgrade block size since this is additional costs to mining.
4. Since bitcoin now is slow and expensive industry found another way to use it - store long term value without risk of government to inflate currency and steal your money. point#2 is still valid. Recent surge in prices is caused by this reasoning in my mind.
5. Since everyone earned enormous amount of money in past months people will keep hodling expecting the growth to continue, but it will slow down. Once it slows down - people will start selling to get their profits and there will be huge correction.
6. In the very long run bitcoin can go through multiple cycles of such growth and decline and either will become more predictable (community will come up with some rules on how bitcoin fees and speeds are regulated etc.) or will stay this a bit more dangerous but a but more free way to transfer value geographically and also over time.
It probably could be more dangerous to world governments if point #3 realized
It seems to be true.
You could then reasonably think of Filecoin as a futures contract on generic file storage capacity. Ethereum is a futures contract on computational horsepower. Bitcoin is something else(?) - perhaps a futures contract on a general long-term abstract form of value storage. In short: Some of these tokens act as futures contracts for decentralized compute capabilities. The most-common current use case happens to be heavily related to finance (DeFi); applications for censorless content networks are also in development; and the applications are really quite general purpose.
Anything today that requires a ledger is a reasonable problem to tackle too, where eliminating centralization could be beneficial. E.g. ENS instead of ICANN for domain names, tokenized stock certificates instead of relying on opaque organizations owned by major banks (e.g. the DTC and problems around naked shorting).
1- how to really get started and participate if I don't have a dedicated server (I mean I would expect something easy to onboard, but I don't want to setup a whole dedicated machine for that, despite the $100 rebate on Digital Ocean's bill).
2- How are the coins allocated and what the heck you can do with them?
3- what if I'm just a user who wants to store some files? No idea how to do that, through who I should go, what tools I should use. How do I pay for the storage to start with?
4- no idea how this economic model works: spend on hardware to become a miner? but I don't see how you get back this heavy investment. I understand miners get paid, but see 3).
5- who is this for exactly? It doesn't seem to target individual users, small businesses or even large companies. Is it just an experimental project, is anyone actually really using it and building stable 'stuff' on it?
6- how does this compare to the other storage solutions in terms of availability, andwidth and cost?
7- What's the adoption so far? Is there any storage available in my region?
I mean, it's a great idea but even as a 'tech guy', I'm lost as to how to use that infrastructure.
I'm sure that I could invest a few hours into it to find out, but should I really have to put that much effort into something that should be clear in a couple of paragraphs without the confusion of big word marketing (I mean that page has all the buzzwords but doesn't explain much by the time you reach the bottom it).
I think the time spent on that nifty animated intro of the front page could have been put to better use. I see no onboarding effort although the docs look good.
Maybe this is too much of a rant and I'm being unfair, I'm sure I must have missed some important things, but I don't see how this can get wide adoption if the basics are not clear and the onboarding is not better.
Or maybe it's just me; I still don't know what it can do for me. Maybe I'm not the target?
Today, there is a lack of Dropbox-like systems to make the decentralized system broadly useful. It's a shortcoming that people are working on solving. It's akin to being given a big ole harddrive: Until you have a filesystem & file browser, it would only be relevant to a small population -- but that utility would explode once tooling is complete.
Some resources to address you question on utilization:
Also: spending less than an hour trying to grok something new, and then ripping into it seems pretty disconnected. Thinking back to my learning curve on emacs, linux, IRC, BBSs, early www, etc. Hell, I remember spending days(!) wire wrapping that first computer and flashing the ROMs. It took substantial effort to be involved in the "obscure hobby", but look where computing and the web are now! Don't mistake ease of use today for potential impact tomorrow.
New paradigms are likely to exhibit a lot of volatility during their onset, but timing matters less than giant rising tides. Time will tell.
The end goal isn't really clear. Perhaps the main thesis is like VC investing. Cool stuff now might become useful and valuable later.
Changing stock trading protocols to go on a block chain with full public transparency would be a useful application. No need for PoW, you can just have the Fed mint new blocks out. This would prevent a lot of the shenanigans and gatekeeping that occur in capital markets. It would greatly improve price discovery.
On a less directly applicable level, I feel that the only realistic strategy for governments in the long term will be to become more competitive with the crypto-ecosystem (currencies, contracts, encryption, etc.). The hope being that by allowing individuals to freely choose their own legal and financial rule-sets the systems that will remain relevant will become better. Having more freedom of choice for which government you'd like to be a part of is ultimately a good thing. Whether that will actually shake out is anyone's guess, but I believe something along those lines is the fundamental hope of this area of technology.
From their homepage:
> Examples include protein structure prediction (Rosetta@home), mapping the Milky Way galaxy (Milkyway@home), and tackling problems in public health and clean energy (World Community Grid).
Things that would make sense:
- SETI@homeCoin, ala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI@home
- ArchiveCoin, ala https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveTeam_Warrior
These would actually be useful.
If I fold trough one of your examples I can get money.
Where is that money coming from?
Blockchain seems like an artificial extra step to pay folders in this case.
the sooner someone introduces the law to ban all proof of work crypto, the better - or at least banning companies from taking or using PoW crypto would be a good start
The challenge appears to be to create a proof of something beneficial for society, like "proof of clean energy generated", "proof of not flying", "proof of vegan lifestyle" or "proof of CO2 sequestered".
Couldn't find what I was planning on buying. What I found was through the roof. I bit the bullet and bought 4 new ones. Not enough to fully populate the NAS, but at least it'll give me some space for now to do what I need.
We've seen scarcity and what it does for prices after the flooding in.. 2010?(ish).
I'm curious what you ended up paying. I bought drives on sale, and got nine 16TB external drives to shuck (one is a spare) for ~$2250 USD taxed and shipped.
I will warn you though that burn-in testing is going to take a while. I did a very exhaustive test... and two drives at a time over USB3 it took about twelve calendar days to test them all before I put them into service.
-- ----- ----- ----- -----
 Write out block pattern, read back. 2 hour break. Head thrash random writes/reads for 2 hours. 2 hour break. Head thrash random writes/reads for 2 hours.
NAS has 6 bays, I only bought 4 to get a RAID 6 setup and I'll expand when I find better prices.
If anyone has links, I'll take them!
I basically ended up getting external seagates that I’m planning to schuck after doing a ‘burn-in’ test. Still high for what they were.
Crypto verse in general feels like a 50/50 bet...but the storage based stuff feels like significantly worse odds
And to store 1 GiB of data per year it only costs the user $0.00082 USD.
That shows harddrives are already being gobbled up by miners at an incredible rate. Has this made a noticeable rise in storage prices? Anyone know of any data that can show that?
i.e Filecoin's and similar coins should have value directly tied to their use to store data while Chia is just another crypto that has no 'intrinsic' value outside its use as a currency and computation platform.
4.81EiB is ~5.54EB. Filecoin has been around for ~81.5 months. That's an average growth rate of only ~68PB/month, but we can of course assume that the current growth rate is higher. For example, last year there was a period where it grew 250PB in a month.
Chiacoin has supposedly added ~200PB to its mainnet in the past 24 hours. That growth rate is also still climbing.
Seagate has been quoted as having an current HDD manufacturing capacity of ~350EB per year. The general assumption is that between Seagate, Western Digital and Toshiba there's likely a total manufacturing capacity of close to 1000EB a year.
Of that 1000EB, a large percentage goes to OEMs and SIs, another large percentage goes to direct customers (Alibaba, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.), and the remainder goes into the sales channel (retail, VARs, etc.). OEMs, SIs and direct customers have contracted supply and pricing, whereas the sales channels do not. Channel is likely 30-40% of current production volume. So that's 300-400EB a year of capacity across all manufacturers going into the sales channel where end users can buy from.
-- ----- ----- -----
At 0.2EB/day of growth, that is 18-24% of all channel volume being consumed just by new Chia farm plots. At that rate, that'll cause channel supply issues very, very soon for certain. Once channel supply becomes exhausted, prices will rise since the demand is there.
The issue is... what ends up happening to the sustained growth rate? If it were to reach something like 1.0EB/day in growth, that is basically all of the normal channel capacity being spoken for just by Chia farm plots. That's an actual disaster for end users.
Manufacturers can't respond to those demand spikes instantly. They can respond some, for certain, but if some component hits maximum manufacturing capacity, you need to expand or build new factories (whether the manufacturers, or contract manufacturers within the supply chain for certain components). Building new factories is not quick. Not just construction, but ensuring that the demand will be sustained so you don't end up with these huge capital expenditure factories going idle when demand wanes.
How can filecoin possibly be that cheap?
Providers like B2 and wasabi are 6-7 cents. Sia spent a while in the single digits is currently around 10. This is less than a tenth of a cent?
They have an obligation to video game makers, hospitals, and other businesses to sell them so that people that need them for other purposes can purchase them at reasonable prices. It's also on the govt to make sure that this happens.
Just my 2 cents.
What would have been smarter would be to make the space allocated to Chia also serve as a decentralized, worldwide storage facility (e.g. compete with S3/Glacier). You'd get better utilization of the resource, and have an extra revenue stream for the system.
Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to follow than Satoshi's at least for me.
Governments so-far failing to regulate existential threats to themselves is honestly odd.
Is it the job of the government to hang onto power at all costs?
For instance, a government cannot maintain law and order without power, and a society without law and order is the definition of a failed state ( well, more specifically one in which the government has lost its monopoly on violence). It's not an unreasonable interpretation to therefore say any non-failed state must retain power.
Factions within governments all around the world are using it to their own ends.