|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Apr 21, 2021 16:43:05 GMT
Sure blockchain is cool and all that. But it doesn't mean all the technology that went before is suddenly obsolete and its "blockchain or nothing". I'd definitely agree with you there. I can see potential for it solving some interesting problems (healthcare records possibly being one) but it needs the backing of people with the unusual ideas (can we put private records securely on a public blockchain) along with those with the ability to also see the risks (could data be compromised, will it be useable in practice). But then that's a common thing in technology. A favourite game where I was working 15 years ago was to ask technology sales people what they meant by the cloud. You could ask 10 different sales reps and get at least 20 different answers (and probably still can). It's good to have fun with sales reps. When my team would procure network hardware (routers, firewalls, sniffers, switches,...) we'd always ask the reps if their offering came with LRF support, because that was important. Invariably, they'd bluff their way through and assure us their box followed every protocol under the sun, including LRF support. If we took pity, and the rep had done a half decent job, we'd sometimes let on that LRF support means the box can stand on its own Little Rubber Feet... 
|
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Apr 21, 2021 22:11:38 GMT
When my team would procure network hardware (routers, firewalls, sniffers, switches,...) we'd always ask the reps if their offering came with LRF support, because that was important. I shall have to remember that one. That would have been very useful in my days of writing tender documents (I can see a question asking about the number of LRF channels and channel sizes). It could possibly go alongside a question about the companies support (past/present/future) for the old favourite of RFC1149.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Apr 22, 2021 0:17:53 GMT
When my team would procure network hardware (routers, firewalls, sniffers, switches,...) we'd always ask the reps if their offering came with LRF support, because that was important. I shall have to remember that one. That would have been very useful in my days of writing tender documents (I can see a question asking about the number of LRF channels and channel sizes). It could possibly go alongside a question about the companies support (past/present/future) for the old favourite of RFC1149. Ah, the old Avian Carrier standard - I remember it well! 
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Apr 27, 2021 11:26:57 GMT
Chatting pretty amicably elsewhere to Crypto enthusiasts, some of the stuff they come up with is quite something.
Sorry if I'm just behind the curve with what everyone knows, but these ideas are new to me:
1) Crypto staking - You basically seem to be paid 8%-12% p.a in order to support transaction validations of weird and wonderful types of crypto by allowing them to use your 'resting' crypto.
2) Crypto dividends - There are a whole raft of types of crypto that claim to pay you dividends simply by holding the coins.
What I find interesting is how complex and wide the Crypto sphere in becoming. I try to keep an open mind about it, but I frankly really struggle. It still to me looks like an awful lot of mostly young people trying to convince themselves that the more complex they make the environment, the more real it becomes and the less risk there must be because just look how much of it there is.
I haven't attempted to explain above how a theoretical currency can pay dividends, or even if we treat it as a speculative investment, off what earnings are dividends being generated. Nor have I explained how there can be a risk-adjusted basis to earn 12% simply by allowing your coins to be used for transaction validation.
I haven't because I can't. It makes me feel like a luddite, but it frankly still seems like utter horseshit to me.
I mean, I'm trying to relate this to the old world. Imagine being paid 12% interest for your £'s being used to support other people spending their £'s to buy stuff at ASDA.
I have no doubt, because I already have been, that I would be told I simply don't 'get' all of this, if I repeated the above to these chaps. That I "need to do some more research". When I do this research, I come up with lots of websites with names like "coinlover.com" with adverts of scantily clad ladies and meme gifs of coins and sports cars. In between all of that, there are pictures of rocketships, which I think is the main thesis here as far as I can see.
Definitely more research required though, I feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Apr 27, 2021 12:12:22 GMT
1) Crypto staking - You basically seem to be paid 8%-12% p.a in order to support transaction validations of weird and wonderful types of crypto by allowing them to use your 'resting' crypto. If you're talking about Proof Of Stake then that's an alternative method for building the blockchain that (in very simple terms) gives you more chances of creating the next block based on the coins you hold (subject to some rules) rather than the amount of hardware and energy you can afford (the basis of the Proof of Work algorithms). The rules and levels of return will depend on what's coded in the coin - some have had stupidly high rates that make little sense. I've talked to others about some of those platforms and I'm yet to be convinced about their models. I think some are trying to loan out fiat or crypto using something else as a security (so you could lodge BTC as a security and borrow USD or ETH). Investors get their dividends based on their funds being used for those loans. Although the amount of actual detail about their model is usually somewhat lacking so it's impossible to do any useful form of due diligence. I'm not sure it's any more theoretical than most fiat currencies. If too much is created too quickly (Banks and QE or bad algorithm decisions) then it's perceived value will go down. You can trade between currencies (fiat/fiat, crypto/fiat, crypto/crypto) based on the desirability of the various currencies. The significant difference is that with fiat someone is in control (government/banks) and with crypto it's an algorithm that needs support of the majority of active participants to change. As a simplistic level isn't that effectively what happens when you invest in a consumer based P2P platform. I invest £1000, that gets lent to various people who spend that money on home improvements, consolidating debt etc. (okay, maybe they'll go to B&Q rather than ASDA). In terms of Proof Of Stake algorithms the risk could be relatively low. I have the coins I own in a wallet that's set up for staking, at some point (depending on the algorithm) I'll earn a reward based on what's staking in the wallet so the capital (at least in terms of that coin) isn't at risk. For the platforms offering a return on a Proof of Work coin (BTC, ETC and many others) then they're presumably using the deposited funds somehow to generate more currency (trading/ loans etc) much like a traditional bank might do (but subject to less rules and regulation) at that point there are many risks which the users don't think about (I've pointed some at the P2P lending risks listed on 4th way as having a number of similarities, particularly around things like platform risk)
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Apr 27, 2021 12:29:11 GMT
Thanks for some further explanation mfaxford, but I still can't get at the nub of this. You've explained the purpose of proof-of-stake / staking, but more fundamentally what is the value being generated from this that means we retail investors deserve 8-12% interest? Who pays the interest, and why is it worth it? We don't have to pay anything directly to transact in fiat cash and Mastercard/Visa etc take a very small % of card transactions. With crypto dividends, your explanation makes it sound a bit like P2P/crowdfunding except at a level of abstraction higher, with the value being added that earns these dividends being basically that it's being lent out. But if so, that's not really a dividend is it? That's a risk premium for lending people money. It seems dangerous to have that marketed as a dividend. Re: the ASDA example, yes exactly it does sound more akin to P2P lending than supporting simple transactions as I had originally suggested, but again if that's the case are we not in danger of abstracting away risk and pretending it's easy interest? I'm actually genuinely going to look more into it (very unlikely to invest, but who knows). However, at the moment all I can envisage is at some stage the tide going out and an awful lot of murky parts of this infrastructure being exposed. If, for example, there are a bunch of questionable loans masquerading as pseudo-dividends, then that's fairly obviously not going to turn out well when the economic conditions are less bubbly/benign. Finally, yes I agree there's definitely some overlap in risks between P2P/Crypto, though to me Crypto appears laden with a whole order of magnitude more risk at the moment, and I'm no great advocate of P2P. |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,034
Likes: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on May 13, 2021 12:09:15 GMT
How does this sound as a good investment model:
- invest over $1bn in bitcoin
- tell everyone that you will accept Bitcoin to purchase you high spec products
- watch the bitcoin price surge
- sell your bitcoins on the quiet
- tell everyone that you've changed your mind and Bitcoin cannot be used to buy your products
- watch the Bitcoin price plumet
You'd never get away with it would you?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,584
Likes: 2,615
|
Post by keitha on May 13, 2021 12:23:41 GMT
How does this sound as a good investment model:
- invest over $1bn in bitcoin
- tell everyone that you will accept Bitcoin to purchase you high spec products
- watch the bitcoin price surge
- sell your bitcoins on the quiet
- tell everyone that you've changed your mind and Bitcoin cannot be used to buy your products
- watch the Bitcoin price plumet
You'd never get away with it would you?
except Elon Musk has
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on May 13, 2021 12:34:56 GMT
How does this sound as a good investment model:
- invest over $1bn in bitcoin
- tell everyone that you will accept Bitcoin to purchase you high spec products
- watch the bitcoin price surge
- sell your bitcoins on the quiet
- tell everyone that you've changed your mind and Bitcoin cannot be used to buy your products
- watch the Bitcoin price plumet
You'd never get away with it would you?
except Elon Musk has What proof do you have that Tesla have sold their BTC? They publicly stated that they have not done so.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on May 13, 2021 19:02:26 GMT
I'd definitely agree with you there. I can see potential for it solving some interesting problems (healthcare records possibly being one) but it needs the backing of people with the unusual ideas (can we put private records securely on a public blockchain) along with those with the ability to also see the risks (could data be compromised, will it be useable in practice). But then that's a common thing in technology. A favourite game where I was working 15 years ago was to ask technology sales people what they meant by the cloud. You could ask 10 different sales reps and get at least 20 different answers (and probably still can). It's good to have fun with sales reps. When my team would procure network hardware (routers, firewalls, sniffers, switches,...) we'd always ask the reps if their offering came with LRF support, because that was important. Invariably, they'd bluff their way through and assure us their box followed every protocol under the sun, including LRF support. If we took pity, and the rep had done a half decent job, we'd sometimes let on that LRF support means the box can stand on its own Little Rubber Feet... I have, on occasion, referred in meetings with senior management to something working over the PFM protocol. Pure F'ing Magic.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on May 13, 2021 19:04:36 GMT
What proof do you have that Tesla have sold their BTC? They publicly stated that they have not done so. A quick google finds St Elon saying they "would not" sell their Bitcoin. That's rather different from they haven't already... finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-bitcoin-221708146.html
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on May 13, 2021 19:39:52 GMT
What proof do you have that Tesla have sold their BTC? They publicly stated that they have not done so. A quick google finds St Elon saying they "would not" sell their Bitcoin. That's rather different from they haven't already... finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-bitcoin-221708146.htmlTesla's SEC 10-Q filing suggests (when compared to the previous quarters 10-Q) both buying and selling with a nett increase in holdings over the reporting period: " During the three months ended March 31, 2021, we purchased and received $1.50 billion of bitcoin. During the three months ended March 31, 2021, we recorded $27 million of impairment losses on bitcoin. We also realized gains of $128 million through sales during the three months ended March 31, 2021. Such gains are presented net of impairment losses in Restructuring and other in the consolidated statement of operations. As of March 31, 2021, the carrying value of our bitcoin held was $1.33 billion, which reflects cumulative impairments of $27 million. The fair market value of bitcoin held as of March 31, 2021 was $2.48 billion." What isn't stated is exactly when each activity took place and only that info could really paint a more complete picture.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on May 13, 2021 19:41:00 GMT
...as of March 31...
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on May 13, 2021 19:49:17 GMT
For sure ... the takeaway from it is that selling can and has happened, even before this latest 'news'.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,034
Likes: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on May 14, 2021 9:51:39 GMT
I see that the hackers who caused the American fuel pipeline to be closed down have received a $5m ransom payment in crypto currency.
As somebody who is blissfully ignorant of these matters, are these transactions completely untracable? Is there no chance at all that somebody is going to get a knock on the door having had the ransom traced back to their laptop?
|
|
