Sounds like he needs a career gap year. But then ive been saying that about jeff for years. So whiny.
Some of us still enjoy toys and the shiny. Its not like we go out of our way to use this shit in production before its out of beta. We use it on pet projects in our own time because its fun, its thought provoking, it leads to new ways of doing things elsewhere, its learning - and thats why i love it, thats why i do what i do.
Edit, nothing like a whinge from jeff to get me riled and ranting to the point I just realised how pationate i am about learning and tech. Doubleplusgood day made.
You know many countries are working on giving the internet natural right status.
If the net wasnt neutral there would be no google we'd all be stuck using yahooor dogpile. The net and all its services would look a lot more like cable was begining to. I find it hard to take anyone seriously when they are defending companies that would have you pay in the blood of your first born if they could get away with it. You think the net would have gone mainstream? You think that facebook would exist? Amazon?
The world has changed with open unfiltered acess to the internet, anything trying to lock it down and monopolise the network transmissions at a base level is incredibly unethical and an attack on so many parts if your life now.
Its too much of a burden on carriers to be regulated like they should be? Fuck me man, its too much of a burden on the world at large not to.
The fcc needs to call them carriers, be done with it, fix the pricing, fix the dodgy dealing and if need be deregulate the issues that seem to be getting isps in such a huf.
Its like silver vs gold. The volume for silver is much higher as its price range is a lot more manageable for people. I also wouldnt be suprised if just one person created the majority of these to push hype. Theyre all a bunch of ponzi schemes. Sadly i also think theyre here to stay for at least a long while.
Because the value of this currency does not come from the ponzi effect, nor will it disappear as it wears off. We'll see less investors, less risk takers, but the purpose it serves will be sustained and even improve as it stabilizes.
Once the situation settles, the risk takers will move on to the next thing, because that's what they like to do. But they aren't going to leave a dead ponzi behind.
Why don't we just agree that it is legitimate to call it a scam (leaving the question of whether it is a scam out of the issue). I know that this is devolving into a semantic argument, but it clearly isn't a Ponzi scheme, as a particular type of scam.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment that represents account balances that are satisfied from a cash pool that only grows from new investors, and provides fictitious returns on the balances.
This really is quite a simple scheme, but alarmingly effective, because as long as people trust that the account balance is legitimate, and the returns are good, people will not exit the scheme. Sometimes, as (apparently) in Mr. Ponzi's case, this emerges not through an attempt to steal money, but in an attempt to buy time to recover from trading losses.
Do we disagree on the definition of Ponzi scheme here? If we agree on the definition, then I don't see any way that you can claim bitcoin/dogecoin/litecoin is a Ponzi scheme -- there are no account balances (in anything but the coin itself), there's no promised return, there's no cash fund that is satisfying investors making exits (unless there's a massive conspiracy of exchanges).
Maybe you can switch to comparing cryptocurrencies to pump-and-dump schemes? Or just call it a scam, an attempt by the creators to create wealth out of thin air by preying on the gullibility of libertarians.
You're right that there's no explicit account balance. Words are imperfect; ultimately bitcoin is a new type of scam. But I want a term that emphasises the disproportionate returns given to the early "investors" - an ordinary stock pump-and-dump doesn't have bitcoin's built-in deflation. I think a Ponzi scheme is the closest fit.
Just like art is art first, or an antique chair is a chair first. The investment or any of these can be described as a ponzi scheme by the above criteria. The first few buyers of a chair make money, it only works is people are still interested in buying the chair...
Absolutely not applicable when brought down to the census tract level in large cities. Compare, for example, the percentage living below poverty line in Manhattan (density of 27,227.1/km2) with the percentage living below poverty line in Brooklyn (density of 14,037/km2).