Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by mathman, Feb 9, 2021.
the market was already saturated when dinsey launched
very poor market awareness by disney
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Either. Both. The point is that they offer something that people see value in. The nature of the "service" (subscription, investment, store of value, whatever) is not all that important, if at all, to that point: people see value in it. Hence the analogy between such things as Bitcoin and Netflix would seem to be appropriate.
If the comment you don't understand is with regard to how stopping Netflix would be beneficial to the environment, however, then the point is that it's an intentionally fatuous comment: all unnecessary energy use is harmful to the environment (on the assumption that energy production requires some level of burning of fossil fuels) so simply saying, as at least one has argued, that it is unnecessary and therefore a waste of energy thus harmful to the environment is similarly fatuous. Nothing really more to the comment than that.
Only in as much as anything with finite supply that is capable of destroyed/lost rather than always recycled will eventually be lost.
Let's say that Bitcoin has been going for 10 years, and 30% has been lost - so let's say that c.3% loss per year... if the loss is constantly at that level then after 100 years there would still be 4-5% left.
However, as time goes on, and if it becomes more widespread and accepted, then less should be lost each year, as people begin to appreciate the value of it and learn how to store it more safely and securely. So in time, yes, more will be lost, undoubtedly, but the % lost each year should reduce, quite significantly.
Also to note: assuming the use and demand of Bitcoin remains the same, the dwindling supply will itself be inflationary to the value.
Well plain ordinary money gets lost until only a few left in collectors coin albums
Bitcoin seems to spell the death of plain ordinary money coin collecting Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Stable Genius, Crypto Edition
The ingenuity of cryptocurrency continues its struggle to adapt to reality:
Core Scientific (CORZ), the world's largest publicly listed miner by computing power, ended October with $32.2 million in cash and 62 BTC ($975,000) and reiterated that it may run out of money before the end of the year.
The company first warned of bankruptcy risk about a month ago, sending its shares plummeting about 80% on Nasdaq. The miner had 1,051 BTC and $29.5 million in cash at the end of September.
Core Scientific is one of several miners struggling to keep afloat as rising energy prices increase costs, and a stubbornly low bitcoin price slashes revenue. Compute North filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in late September, and Iris Energy has received a notice of default on its loans. Argo Blockchain (ARBK) and Greenidge Generation (GREE) have also said they are strapped for cash.
According to the Coindesk article, Core Scientific accounts for 8.6% of the global BTC hashrate. Core's third-quarter report, filed this week, suggests it could run out of cash before the year is out, and observes, "it is very difficult to predict when or if bitcoin prices will recover or energy costs will abate" (qtd. in Gkritsi). While capitalistic notions drive the cryptocurrency market, it is another side of modern capitalism presently setting in:
The mining firm is in talks with creditors to restructure its debt and raise capital. One lender, BlockFi, has been caught in the crossfire of crypto exchange FTX's collapse. The exchange had promised to bail out BlockFi with a $400 million credit facility, and that's now not likely to materialize. Core Scientific had about $54 million outstanding to BlockFi as of Sept. 30.
Core Scientific has been affected by the bankruptcy of lender Celsius's mining arm, one of its biggest clients. Celsius Mining filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July, and in September sued Core Scientific claiming that it violated automatic stay terms. Core Scientific claims Celsius owes it $5.2 million as of Sept. 30.
Two other companies sued CORZ in November: Sphere 3D (ANY) and McCarthy Building Companies. A class-action lawsuit was filed in the same month in Texas courts alleging failures to disclose important information to investors.
Bitcoin is off today, down YTD, has fallen over 70% since last year, and nearly three quarters since it peaked thirteen months ago.
The next quarter, at least, looks a little rough for cryptocurrency in general and BTC specifically; it's hard to see how energy costs recover at least before the end of the war, and it seems uncertain where rescue capital is going to come from. The Bitcoin mining sector prospect is strange; if we add in Iris, now in default, over ten percent of global BTC hashrate is struggling financially. With Argo and Greenridge struggling, as well, that number creeps toward fifteen percent. Looking forward, the next year seems fraught with uncertainty.
The flip-side, of course, is that cryptocurrency in general might be, as a concept, too big to fail compared to how much whoever invested. But if history might look back at a mining rush, our present moment might wonder at a post-rush future. The thing about not being like gold, though, is that we are not precluded from a future mining boom.
Gkritsi, Eliza. "Bitcoin Mining Giant Core Scientific Ended October With $32M in Cash". CoinDesk. 22 November 2022. CoinDesk.com. 1 December 2022. https://bit.ly/3H2AuGt
In other news Sears and Kmart are out of business, retail still survives however. Bitcoin is down 70% from its peak at some point in every 4 year cycle. It's still the switch that once turned on, can't be turned off.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Obverse, true enough. Reverse: It's not necessarily an appropriate comparison.
Thanks for declaring your vested interest in promoting Bitcoin.
So far, Sarkus is unwilling to join you in that disclosure.
Harry Potter and the Whatnow?
Meanwhile, Robert Evans↱ offers some notes on "Rationalist Harry Potter and the Collapse of Crypto", which might be an overstatement, as it pertains particularly to the collapse of FTX:
The short of it is that FTX and Alameda were big gambling platforms, in which nerds in their late 20s with delusions of grandeur bet on what are called "shitcoins" while giving interviews about effective altruism and claiming that all of this was being done in the service of charity.
The way the tech press fell for this is fascinating, but today we're going to look at some of the ideology that helped inspire the greatest disaster in crypto history. And to tell that story, we need to look back at Caroline Ellison, and her obsession with Harry Potter ....
.... A Forbes article, published November 18th, provided more information, claiming Ellison was a "Harry Potterhead", and that her parents first started reading the books to her when she was three years old.
But if Caroline were just obsessed with the normal Harry Potter series, I would not be writing about it.
Her old Tumblr existed under the name "WorldOptimisation". Gawker revealed this for an article in which they also noted she was heavily into fan fiction. Several folks on Twitter pointed out that the phrase "World Optimisation" has its origin in another piece of fan-fiction, an epic re-write of the first Harry Potter book called Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
If you are a normal, decent, well-socialized human being, you probably have not heard about Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. Actually explaining what this thing is will have to happen in several different stages. But I should start by telling you this re-write of the first Harry Potter book is around 660,000 words long.
By comparison, Evans notes, the whole of the Lord of the Rings series clocks in at 580,000 words. Written by Eliezer Yudkowski over the course of several years, Harry Potter and the Methods of Reationality "is so long the audiobook for it clocks in at about 500 hours", according to Evans, which is not entirely accurate; narrator Jack Voraces hopes to make it into a 500-hour audiobook.
Some descriptions, such as Harry being "basically the Jesus Christ of Rational Thought", aren't necessarily accurate: "While Eliezer's Harry Potter is obsessed with rationalist thought experiments and Bayes's Theorem," Evans expalins, "he very rarely solves any problems via logic and intelligence."
Instead he gets a time-turner (Harry Potter time machine) right away and then uses time travel to solve nearly all of his problems. I have read roughly 100,000 words of this stupid thing, along with a chapter-by-chapter review by an actual scientist. If you're the kind of person who learns useful life lessons from Rational Harry Potter, you're probably multi-billion dollar fraudster Caroline Ellison.
Speaking of which, remember when I said her Tumblr name "WorldOptimization", was a reference to Rational Harry Potter? It comes from this line, spoken Eliezer's 11-year-old protagonist:
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
Rational Harry Potter spends a mind-numbing portion of the book's total length discussing his desire to take over the world once his rationalist skills allow him to hack magic. He is not depicted as being a bad guy for wanting this.
In a way, this actually hints after explanations for other things going on in the vicinity of contemporary Rationalism. Evans suggests, "World domination is a background theme that runs through the whole online rationalist community", which would make a certain amount of sense. But that is its own question, for another day.
In our moment, the question is what this has to do with what Caroline Ellison has to do with the FTX collapse. There is a certain easy shrug that goes with saying, "Sounds about right," but there is also an easy facial response that goes, "Oh, come on. FFS, no, no, and no."
Evans, Robert. "Rationalist Harry Potter and the Collapse of Crypto". Shatter Zone. 2 December 2022. ShatterZone.Substack.com. 4 December 2022. https://bit.ly/3VEwSyC
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Because, as explained already, a number of times, JamesR, it is an irrelevancy. Whether or not I have a vested interest makes no difference to the accuracy or veracity of what I have said, which stand or fall on the words themselves. Why are you struggling to understand that relatively simple notion, such that you are continuing to ask this irrelevant question? Stop asking irrelevant questions which you should know by now I have no interest in answering.
Tell you what, JamesR, you tell me what you want me to say, what answer you want me to give. Do you want me to say that I am heavily invested in the cryptoworld and have made a comfortable future for myself off the back of it? Do you want me to say that I have no investments at all, and would never consider such, even if I think it an interesting technology which people clearly find beneficial? Do you want me to say that I have lost thousands of dollars in the technology? Millions, perhaps? Or made thousands? Millions? How about if I say that I'm employed by one of these exchanges at the developer level? Or that I actually launched my own exchange? Or perhaps launched my own coin? Or maybe I'm employed by a lobby-group to promote the tech. Or perhaps none of the above?
So you tell me what you want me to say, okay. You tell me what will make you happy and what will fit the fantasy that you're wanting to create, okay?
You are declaring your bias interest in having no knowledge in the subject that you are discussing. This is a petty position to take even for you.
As I have explained, it is relevant.
I have asked no irrelevant questions.
Here's an idea: you could try being honest. Might be too high a bar for you, it seems.
I have made no such declaration.
Did Sarkus tell you to write that?
Didn't you suggest that Sarkus and I are the same person?
James, since I assume that you don't own a spaceship shouldn't you disclose that bias?
At one time in the past, I thought you might be.
If it's relevant to trying to promote Bitcoin, I guess. Of course, whether one is invested in Bitcoin seems more relevant to this topic than the question of whether one owns a spaceship.
Is it not obvious to you that if somebody owns lots of Bitcoin, or is paid by somebody to promote Bitcoin, or whatever, then knowing those facts would put people in a better position to evaluate that person's enthusiastic promotion of Bitcoin as the bestest investment in the world?
If not, I don't know how I can help you.
Separate names with a comma.