Moderator: coldharvest
Kurt wrote:In late 2012 I was trying to figure out an easy way to supplement my income so I looked at bitcoin mining.
I designed a theoretical 12U colo rig that would have worked as a 4 node cluster with Radeon HPC GPUs (I think) for about $60k for the rig and about $150 per month colo. I calculated the monthly hash rate as everaging 1.4BTC per day back when it was hovering between $12 and $14 per BTC so at the time it was not really feasible for me to do this..because I had no idea that I could be making $10k to $20k per day in future money.
Spending $60k on computer equipment that I knew would be worth $5k in 5 years, and only if parted out for about $350 per month net was a bad idea considering I had a pending wedding to pay for, but yah...oops.
My theory on bitcoin is that Satoshi is dead. 1 million BTC not cashed out? Only a dead man would have that kind of fortitude. My guess is Hal Finney created bitcoin to fund his medical care and then had another account to fund his life once we had a cure for death, decapitation, being frozen and ALS. His BTC alone was worth quite a pile when he died and it did pay for his end of life care, his family and his head being frozen at Alcor, so good for him. But the Satoshi Nakomoto...I think that is him too. He just used the name of his high school friend (or was it college?) and that unclaimed pile could essentially make him the richest undead person ever if he were to ever return and claim it (if it keeps climbing).
Of course I think it would be hilarious to completely devalue it so when he wakes up and is prepared to claim the title of the richest decapitated person ever only to be told that a bunch of Russians trying to tell people that they were going to reveal the porn they watched via SPAM had ruined his perfect plan and now he would just have to be pushed around on a skateboard as just a head.
ROB wrote:It will be treated like any other tradable asset.
Regulated. Taxes paid on profits drawn.
What it will never be treated as: currency.
Kurt wrote:Except as a crime currency.
ROB wrote:Kurt wrote:Except as a crime currency.
It doesn't fit the definition.
It's a tradable asset like gold.
Isn't it basically extortion though? The idea of the threat stopping when payment is provided. Beats dog-napping.Kurt wrote:But it facilitates crime that could not exist before crypto. There was Ransomware before this but it was very, very rare and most of it targeted to one user or group and those who did it got caught because sending a check or wiring money is pretty easy to trace.ROB wrote:Kurt wrote:crime currency.
It doesn't fit the definition. It's a tradable asset like gold.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests