Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Oh noes!?!?! (Score 1) 101

Why don't you try... oh, I don't know, pulling your head out of your ass and reading the millions of critiques out there that very, very effectively tear Bitcoin down on pretty much every single point its proponents have ever put forward as a reason it should be worth something?

Millions? Huh. Care to provide any links to the ones you think are especially informative?

Your faith in Bitcoin (and yes, it's faith, because it is totally unsupported facts) is making you look more than just a little foolish. As are your irrelevant claims to be an authority of any kind on the subject, and your apparent compulsion to carry on defending it with follow-up posts days after everyone else has passed this topic by.

1. You've made a mistake. I suggest you re-read my first response to you. I clearly state that I'm betting against bitcoin's long term prospects.
2. Nowhere in this thread (or on this site) have I ever claimed to be an authority on bitcoin. All I did was inform you of my background in banking/finance in response to your childish claim of superiority (which you have yet to demonstrate).
3. This topic of discussion was posted to /. yesterday evening, not "days" ago. Since I only visit this site in the odd evening after work, I simply replied to you (and one other person in this thread) tonight. Is that too difficult for you to understand? I guess it is, and that's pretty sad.

It's time to pack your robe away, put down the manifesto, and move on to your next foolish obsession. Or grow up. Either or.

Bitcoin has been a curiosity for me, not an obsession. And no matter what my opinion may be with regard to it's success or failure, I will continue to study it because I find it intellectually stimulating.

I don't really expect to learn much from you, though. Your posts in this thread have so far been devoid of any factual data or reasoned arguments.

Cheers!

Comment Re:Oh noes!?!?! (Score 1) 101

This is what makes it obvious you are NOT as savvy as I, at least in this area; it HAS been seen.

Just because my opinion that the jury is still out re bitcoin doesn't match your opinion that bitcoin is a complete failure DOESN'T mean you are more technologically savvy on the matter. I make my living consulting in ERP/Financial Reporting Systems and have several large banking clients. I have undergraduate degrees in Economics and Accounting, and a graduate degree in Business - so I'm not exactly naive when it comes to the matter at hand.

If you haven't figured that out, you haven't learned enough about it. Or rather, you've wasted just enough time to be interested in it, but not enough to realize that time was wasted.

So...the time I've spent acquiring knowledge of bitcoin has been wasted, huh? LOL. If I decide to change my opinions on bitcoin to more closely align with yours will my time magically become "well spent"?

Tell you what, why don't you take the time to draft a post demonstrating your extensive knowledge on the technology and economics of bitcoin and lay out some well-reasoned arguments supporting your position that "Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed, technologically and philosophically"? Right now, all anyone sees in this thread is you claiming you're superior to someone you disagree with. Kinda makes you look a little foolish, don't you think?

Comment Re:Oh noes!?!?! (Score 1) 101

Well, you don't have to read very far into Satoshi's paper to see that bitcoin was designed specifically to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

While not explicitly stated as a goal in Satoshi's paper, the system was designed to be decentralized in order to protect its integrity.

The fact of the matter is that one cannot (for all practical purposes) transact in bitcoin without using a trusted third party, and that mining has become highly centralized. In this respect, one can only conclude that bitcoin is an abject failure when it comes to it's stated objectives. If anything, bitcoin proved that trusted intermediaries are a requirement for any system of electronic currency.

Comment Re:Oh noes!?!?! (Score 2) 101

Slashdot - a forum where everyone should ideally be technically savvy enough to recognize Bitcoin as technological bullshit.

mmm...I consider blockchain technology to be fairly sophisticated, but I'm probably not as savvy as you.

I'll grant you that the bitcoin ecosystem is a mess. It has devolved into exactly the dragon the system was designed to slay - i.e., high degree of centralization, dependence on trusted intermediaries, etc.

Whether or not bitcoin can ever become competitive with the established electronic currency systems remains to be seen, but I'm betting it will never become anything more than nerd funny money.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 77

LOL, I admit I had a good chuckle writing it. You see, I'm home sick today with not much to do so I figured I'd write a quick troll on Slashdot and see if I could push anyone's buttons. As you can see, I've had a measure of success.

The first moderation of the post correctly labelled it as "Troll", but I'm glad at least a couple of other moderators saw the humor in it.

I've been reading Slashdot for some time, so I have a pretty good idea of how to "stir the pot"

Cheers!

Submission + - Patriot Missile shoots down $300 quadcopter drone (bbc.co.uk)

maroberts writes: In a stunning display of the capability of Patriot or a demonstration of massive overkill, depending on your point of view, a US ally has used a Patriot missile to successfully shoot down a quadcopter drone, reports BBC News

The party responsible was described by Gen Perkins, a United States General with responsibility for training, as "a very close ally", leaving it up to the general public to guess which of the 12 allies using Patriot batteries would commit such an awesome demonstration of asymmetric warfare.

Comment Capital Asset Pricing Model (Score 1) 55

The IPO would reportedly value the company above $20 billion.

"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability."

We had CAPM drilled into us when I was in business school back in the 80's. I guess no one on Wall Street uses it anymore. :-(

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...