Steve Wozniak: Bitcoin Is Better Than Gold And The Dollar

Tyler Durden's picture

While average consumers might be more than happy transacting in dollars and holding investments in gold, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, a mathematician by training, believes bitcoin is superior to both as a medium and store of value for one crucial reason: Its mathematically determined supply of 21 million coins makes it impossible to dilute the existing supply, making it more secure.

Wozniak shared his views on bitcoin and blockchain technology during an interview with CNBC tech correspondent Deirdre Bosa at the Money 20/20 conference in Las Vegas on Sunday. Fittingly, the theme of the conference is the future of payments, transactions and, of course, currencies.

As Bitcoin Magazine reported, Wozniak feels a currency is more “stable” when it cannot be diluted.

“There is a certain finite amount of bitcoin that can ever exist. Gold gets mined and mined and mined. Maybe there’s a finite amount of gold in the world, but Bitcoin is even more mathematical and regulated and nobody can change mathematics.”

In this sense, Wozniak described the US dollar as “kind of phony,” while describing Bitcoin as more “genuine and real.”

Woz added that supplies of gold can be diluted as humans discover more efficient ways of digging it out of Earth.

“Gold gets mined and mined and mined,” Wozniak said.

 

“Maybe there’s a finite amount of gold in the world, but Bitcoin is even more mathematical and regulated and nobody can change mathematics.”

Wozniak went on to compare bitcoin with owning a house: “Your house his value. And if it is a house today, 40 years from now, it still is a house in value even if the price goes up and the government draws more taxes out of it."

Even before it entered mainstream consciousness, Wozniak said he “admired” bitcoin almost from the beginning. However, in the early days, setting up a special bank account to buy bitcoin was too much of a hassle. The process, he said was “so awkward, it kept me from getting early bitcoin.” When he finally did manage to buy it, the price almost immediately halved.  

“I looked at it as a form of currency,” he said, adding that initially he did not understand the underlying blockchain technology but now he does.

But, Wozniak says the price was always a secondary concern. “I am not financial,” he told the crowd, adding he never followed the price of bitcoin, nor the price of Apple stock but said he was drawn to bitcoin because it was based on mathematics.

“My wife and I, we judge a hotel room more by the number on the door than what is inside the room. We are both mathematicians,” he said.

Beyond simply facilitating transactions, Wozniak believes blockchain technology has the potential to transform industries as diverse as financial services and mining.

“Right now, there is conflict with minerals in the world, and you don’t want to buy conflict minerals. Well, how do you avoid it?” He continued by explaining how companies will usually buy gold from different countries and smelt it together, so there is no way of knowing where it all comes from. With blockchain-based solutions, however, tracking where that gold comes from is now possible.

“They are applying the technology where all the payment can only go to the good, legitimate sources that don’t have conflict minerals,” he added.

With all the potential use cases popping up, it will take years for people to determine what works and what doesn’t. This is why, Wozniak says, the introduction of Ethereum is like when personal computers first hit the market and suddenly people were writing “tens of thousands of programs” nobody had ever thought of before. The dawn of smart contracts will help the technology realize its potential.

“There is a lot more to this cryptocurrency than just the Bitcoin,” he said.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
silverserfer's picture

D-bags.. meet your god.

Overfed's picture

Who wins the pool as to the date that it is disclosed that Wozniak has come down with dementia?

Bud Dry's picture

Wait...  how are multiple forks finite?

EnglishMajor's picture

What do you do when the electricity goes off?  Count numbers in your head?

nope-1004's picture

If I placed an order for 1,000 Macs from him, would he take gold or bigcoin?

lmao.... a decade of crypto vs millenia of gold is a no brainer.

JohnG's picture

My gold has never had any conflicts either with itself or me.....

 

SickDollar's picture

“There is a certain finite amount of bitcoin that can ever exist. Gold gets mined and mined and mined. Maybe there’s a finite amount of gold in the world, but Bitcoin is even more mathematical and regulated and nobody can change mathematics.”

Really last time I checked bitcoin can be extended to produce more coins (cant trust anything that is coding/software based)

Fuck your bitcoin and your dollars, Give me some Pet rocks BITCHEZ

Someone tells this geek  about  the PETROYUAN  coming online in two months BITCHEZ .

FYI I always wondered how come the creator never came forward

wee-weed up's picture

 

 

"Bitcoin is even more mathematical and regulated and nobody can change mathematics"

Math is not the issue.

Comes the EMP, gold doesn't need electricity and the Internet to function as a source of value as needed...

Bitcoin DIES without them...

Poof! It's gone!

beemasters's picture

That's something I have been wondering about...If there's a digital virus that destroys all wallets, servers and the contents, who really benefits??? And will that "finite" amount of bitcoins just disappear?

lil dirtball's picture

> If there's a digital virus that destroys all wallets, servers and the contents

Yeah ... but if the only uninfected wallet in the entire world, replete with coins, was on a stick in your sock drawer ... .

I mean, think about it.

tmosley's picture

Then the entire network would be restored.

But somehow, I suspect that was not what you had in mind.

lil dirtball's picture

> Then the entire network would be restored.

Why? Why would it be restored? Because my coins exist where all others were destroyed (not my words, but that's the parameters)? Because my coins exist, therefore they are? And so an entire global network would have to be restored, possibly from the ground up, because my coins are clean and intact in my sock drawer? If my coins also were tainted, then 100% of the tech is gone - why re-create it? Where would you get all the clean data to recreate it - and for what purpose? How could you prove that you had x coins? Isn't the intent to make them non-traceable?

Otherwise - what are you talking about?

RedDwarf's picture

"Why? Why would it be restored?"

A bitcoin wallet is the entire record of every bitcon transaction ever made.  If there is even one copy in the world that can be used as a seed.  Asking this question is like asking if there is only one copy a book left in the world how would it be possible to use that copy to make more copies?  Obviously it would be easy.

"Because my coins exist where all others were destroyed"

A wallet is a copy of the entire ledger.  What you are saying is like saying if you and I both have a copy of the same book that if my copy is destroyed that somehow your copy is also destroyed.

You do not understand at a basic level what a blockchain is.  It is not one file that everyone shares.  It is millions of copies of the same file that everyone updates from time to time by adding to the end of the file in an agreed upon manner.  Even if all the files did get corrupted, everyone could just roll back to the last known good transaction and restart from there.

For your scenario to play out every single copy of this file in existance, on every computer and every pen drive and every DVD backup and every other cold storage copy would have to magically disappear, because even with only one copy the entire system can be rebooted.  Not even world-wide mass emp would explain your scenario.

In any event, if such a thing could happen we're well past worrying about bitcoin.  You're talking the end of modern civilization if all computers and storage media can be destroyed by some bizarro super-tech.

Bokkenrijder's picture

"“My wife and I, we judge a hotel room more by the number on the door than what is inside the room. We are both mathematicians,” he said."

Gee, that must be a fun couple. /sarc

Blockchain technology is no doubt very interesting and I believe it when people say that there are many good uses for it, but for me the problem is that there is nothing INTRINSIC about Bitcoin. Nothing, it's fiat on steroids. It's just digital, and finite, fiat. 

With fiat you 'buy' a promise/decree and at least you get a physical piece of paper with dead presidents on it, with BTC you 'buy' a blockchain and the mere hope that someone will find this blockchain valuable. It's "baked air" as we say in The Netherlands. 

MaffeProg's picture

Yes it will be total restored if there is one wallet which is fully in sync. Bitcoin is like a virus you need one to make millions even billions of the same wallets. Even if a wallet is destroyed and you have your private key of your wallet which has everyone than you can restore your bitcoins and you have them back. If you lost your private key which does many people the coins will be just not accesible. So this means bitcoin can truely never day only if everyone is without energy but if the world is without energy many people will die so it doesn't matter

 

You also have a few forks: Soft fork, Hard fork and just a Fork. If you do a fork it will be a shitcoin nobody want a new bitcoin so it will be a shitcoin without value or less vallue Bitcoin will be king over forks. So if you say if there comes a fork you're wrong many people try to do a hard fork and everyone can't take over bitcoin because when its forked it loses its name.

RedDwarf's picture

"but if the only uninfected wallet in the entire world, replete with coins, was on a stick in your sock drawer ... ."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

* GASP * WHEEZE *

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, you're killing me here.

Idaho potato head's picture

It will have the same effect as if you lose your paper that your code is written on it is gone not to be recovered by anyone.

kochevnik's picture

Nothing.  Hard wallet has air gap

RagnarHadAPoint's picture

Maybe, but "comes the EMP" one's odds of surviving in America for the first 12 months post-EMP are about 7%. That's probably an overly optimistic assessment.

If you're not already writing your pithy comments from the other side of a solar powered satellite uplink from your totally off the grid redoubt in very rural Idaho you can pretty much kiss your sarcastic ass good bye like the rest of us.

There won't be a precious metals based economy because there will be about 300 million bodies to bury or burn. That's a lot of work to do for the 22 or 23 million people who might make it through the first year.

So rather than wasting your time on sarcasm, why not call your Congressional rep and your senators and demand that they work to harden the power system? It'd put a lot of people to work and give the Swamp dwellers a lot of chances for graft and thievery while they help secure our continued existance.

RagnarHadAPoint's picture

Maybe, but "comes the EMP" one's odds of surviving in America for the first 12 months post-EMP are about 7%. That's probably an overly optimistic assessment.

If you're not already writing your pithy comments from the other side of a solar powered satellite uplink from your totally off the grid redoubt in very rural Idaho you can pretty much kiss your sarcastic ass good bye like the rest of us.

There won't be a precious metals based economy because there will be about 300 million bodies to bury or burn. That's a lot of work to do for the 22 or 23 million people who might make it through the first year.

So rather than wasting your time on sarcasm, why not call your Congressional rep and your senators and demand that they work to harden the power system? It'd put a lot of people to work and give the Swamp dwellers a lot of chances for graft and thievery while they help secure our continued existance.

LittleGreenMan's picture

US Dept of De-education just announced that 2 + 2 = 5

Overfed's picture

I wish I would have bought a couple of hundred FRNs worth of Bticoin back when it was like four bucks. I would gladly swap it now for gold/silver/brass and lead/steel/etc.

SILVERGEDDON's picture

Beluga Boy Woz sells out to the tmosley pimp my bubble crowd. 

Tyler, what the fuck happened to the Zero ?

Fight Club has become Club Fed, showcasing Digital Sheeple Control Bux stories.  

RedDwarf's picture

"Really last time I checked bitcoin can be extended to produce more coins "

Only if the majority agree.

"Fuck your bitcoin and your dollars, Give me some Pet rocks BITCHEZ"

No one is stopping you from buying your PMs.  What is interesting is how butthurt and angry you are.  Can it be you're just pissed that crypto is doing well while gold languishes?

"Someone tells this geek  about  the PETROYUAN  coming online in two months BITCHEZ ."

So, more anger, and you're cheering fiat trash.  You're beyond retarded.

"FYI I always wondered how come the creator never came forward"

Because there are insane people like you who probably would murder him.

IH8OBAMA's picture

Wozniak feels a currency is more “stable” when it cannot be diluted.

How's that stability workin out for you?  Good?  Just wait til it goes the other direction.  LOL

Endgame Napoleon's picture

It is like how an oversupply of labor dilutes the value of labor. Like Woz says, gold-extraction methods advance, allowing them to mine more gold, diluting the value of the current gold supply. Whenever something is less rare, it is less valuable. He made the point that there is a limited amount of the finite natural resource called gold, but you can still mine more of it within that finite amount, whereas you cannot mine numbers in math. Math people apparently know where all of the possible, numerical configurations in the cryptocurrency realm are, so they cannot dilute it by extracting more numbers, like they can dilute gold value by finding where more of it is located. I wonder if they have a $2 Bitcoin so that Woz can play jokes on baristas.

NiggaPleeze's picture

 

"you can still mine more of it within that finite amount, whereas you cannot mine numbers in math"

Yeah except it's NOT math, it's software code, and it's remarkably amazing that a mathematician would say something so UTTERLY STUPID.  Software code that can be altered at will.  With a blockchain that, given enough computing power (which certain actors have), that can be altered at will, too.  Nobody is going to take my gold out of my safe deposit by "mining" bitcoins.

And the fact is the amount of gold is finite, it just keeps taking more effort to mine it.  Hmm, remind you of something?  Except, again, "gold" cannot be "forked" into another identical substance at a whim, never mind competing "precisous metals" having an UNLIMITED CAPACITY TO APPEAR (anybody, and I mean anybody, can create a new virtual currency in a few days).  Global gold ownership cannot be re-allocated by someone with a bigger computer.  Gold cannot be outlawed effectively by the government. 

This is such utter nonsense, Steve has to be long Bitcoin and is trying to pump it. 

Dammit Walter's picture

If specific Bitcoins can be seqestered because of "conflict" that implies that any Bitcoin could be sequestered for any reason to be determined in the future.

The consequences could mean YOUR Bitcoins could be blocked from use because say... you donated to WikiLeaks.   

Until all Bitcoins (or any xCoins) can be exchanged regardless of status of Payer-A and Payee-B, then the entire system can potentially be centrally controlled.  

Plus the concerns over who controls the 51% of the coin network could vote to change the rules... and... it's gone.

NiggaPleeze's picture

 

It doesn't even take sequestering. It just takes 50% of mining computing power to make the blockchain whatever you want it to be - literally.  Just let that sink in.

So who would have that much computing power?  Hmm, I dunno ... Banks?  NSA?  Organized crime?  Chinese government?  Anybody that can set up a bot net that uses WiFi cameras, washing machines, smartphones and whatever else to run the program they want (hint:  bot-nets can be used for anything, not just DOS attacks).

Plus every transaction, ever, is tracked.  IRS (and the Chinese capital control agency), I am sure, will be all over that.  No more need for antiquated 1099s.

Oh, and if the electricity goes out?  You've lost everything!  Did you lose your "walltet" - tough.  That's why most people don't carry, say, all their gold around with them.  The people of Puerto Rico holding their bitcoins are ... [insert adjective here].

Bitcoin is the currency for utter morons, it's even more stupid than the tulip bubble.  At least tulips cannot be duplicated at will!

[ And you can see the morons who have bought into this fraud clicking on down-votes, trying to protect their "investment", lmfao. ]

tmosley's picture

That's called a hardfork, and any such fork that caused the cap on the number of coins to be increased would be abandoned by the market.

The miners must obey the market.

Peanutz can't even comprehend how free markets work. You don't just get to do whatever you want.

NiggaPleeze's picture

any such fork that caused the cap on the number of coins to be increased would be abandoned by the market

And why is that?  Bitcoin is no better than Etherum is no better than DupeCoin or FiatCoin or ButtCoin.  The list of cryptocurrencies is constantly growing and there is nothing to stop a million new cryptocurrencies from springing up.  Yeah there's the network effect but that is different from relying on actual scarcity such as gold.  There is absolutely no scarcity of crypto-currency, at best there's a scarcity of a particular blockchain.

But there is another problem with the "limited number" of bitcoins argument.  Sure, there may be, say, 1 billion bitcoins.  But the bitcoins are being sliced into ever smaller pieces.  At what point does 0.0000001 bitcoins become a bitcoin? 

So here's the issue there:  even 1 bitcoin can be sliced into an infinite number of pieces.  Thus there are actually an infinite number of bitcoins.  It's all just magnetic fields on a disk. 

So you have:  bitcoins being sliced ever smaller; bitcoin forks; alternate crypto-currencies.  Together, they provide for an INFINITE SUPPLY of cryptocurrencies. There is no scarcity at all.  None, except the hood over your eyes.

tmosley's picture

You need to accept reality. There are more than a thousand cryptos NOW. The vast majority of them are worth nothing. There is no network to process their transactions. No-one accepts them. No-one wants them. Why would you think that would change?

>At what point does 0.0000001 bitcoins become a bitcoin? 

The second the number 100000000 becomes the number 1. It doesn't matter how much you can subdivide it. Actually, it matters the other way, as subdivisibility is a major feature of money. When things go down in price from the perspective of a bitcoin holder, they aren't losing out to dilution like fiat holders. This is extremely basic stuff, and I honestly can't believe that any hard money advocates would be so desperate or ignorant as to try to make such an argument.

>There is no scarcity at all.

Repeat it enough times and maybe it will become true and your gold will be worth something again.

NiggaPleeze's picture

There is no network to process their transactions. No-one accepts them. No-one wants them. Why would you think that would change?

Let's see - because fads change? and technology improves? and governments make laws?  Bitcoin is a fad.  You are relying on the network effect, but someone can come up with a better cryptocurrency at any time.  Particularly governments or (central) banks.  How are your vinyl records doing?

It doesn't matter how much you can subdivide it. Actually, it matters the other way, as subdivisibility is a major feature of money. When things go down in price from the perspective of a bitcoin holder, they aren't losing out to dilution like fiat holders.

You are absolutely missing the point.  My point is:  there is no scarcity!  There are an infinite number of bitcoins.  Hence the value of the smallest unit is exactly 0.  Now, multiple 0 by 1 trillion and what do you get?  Yeah, zero.  The fact that it is infinitely divisible - at no cost - means there is a free, infinite supply and the value of anything with an infinite supply is objectively nothing.  The doofuses who are "investing" in infinity just don't get it, they are fooled by the "limited number" argument.  Instead of thinking the number of bitcoins is limited to 21 million, there actually is no limit at all.  All of which is different (and worse) than fiat currency, which does have limits - even if you can be diluted, the fact is there is not an infinite number of them because they can only be subdivided so much.  In the US the smallest currency unit is $0.01.  Try to charge someone $0.000001 for accessing a webpage and you will see it is not possible.  With bitcoin, it is.

Aside from the fact, that it is fundamentally, by design, insecure, in that the entire allocation (blockchain) can be altered.  It's purely a battle of computing power.  Bitcoin algorithm means that 51% of computing nodes determine who has what.  Hence, it is trivial for anyone with massive computing power to completely rewrite the blockchain to be whatever they want.  In this sense, also, bitcoin is not finite since the entire allocation an be altered - in fact, the 21 million limit can be removed - if only 51% of nodes decide to do that.  And, yeah, 51% of nodes can be controlled by a single person.

And that assumes the Bitcoin fad continues and alternates don't overtake it, which, guaranteed, they will.  Particularly when the IRS and the DOJ start going after bitcoin users, since all their "anonymous" transactions are, in fact, permanently publicly visible.

your gold will be worth something again

My gold is worth something now, more than I paid for it in fact.  On top of that, it will still be worth a lot in 1,000 years.  And in a power outage.  And regardless of what market fads are next year.  Oh, and I can spend it anonymously. 

Good luck with your Big Brother, fiat, infinite, tulip BullshitCoin.

tmosley's picture

> but someone can come up with a better cryptocurrency at any time.

I like things that are better. I am invested in several cryptos that are better than bitcoin. But network effect isn't just about technology. If it were, Bitcoin would rank maybe numer 20 in terms of market cap.

>Particularly governments or (central) banks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Zabm6seN4

>There are an infinite number of bitcoins

No, there aren't. That is a ludicrous position to take and you know it. When you buy a bitcoin, you have not just 1/21,000,000th of all the bitcoin that will ever exist, you also have 1/21,000,000th of all the Satoshi that will ever exist. Things costing less bitcoin doesn't dilute your holdings. If you can't see that, then you are deep in cognitive dissonance, and your brain has explicitly conceeded the argument.

>in that the entire allocation (blockchain) can be altered

A 51% attack has to be maintained forever for the effects not to disappear at the end of the attack (those who accepted fraudulent bitcoins during the attack lose whatever they traded for them). The blockchain is not altered, only new blocks.

> Hence, it is trivial for anyone with massive computing power to completely rewrite the blockchain to be whatever they want.

You have a very interesting definition of the word "trivial".

> in fact, the 21 million limit can be removed - if only 51% of nodes decide to do that

Not really, that just creates a hardfork. The remaining 49% will be on the original chain. You can't alter the code with a 51% attack. You just create a new coin that nobody will want and thus it will go to zero.

>My gold is worth something now, more than I paid for it in fact

I like how you have to specify that.

>Oh, and I can spend it anonymously. 

No, you can't. You can only sell it for fiat and then spend that somewhere anonymously. If you use any service that allows you to spend it with a card or some such, there goes your anonymity. And that, of course, depends on the coin shops being open. EMP fucks you just like it fucks Bitcoiners.

>Good luck with your Big Brother, fiat, infinite, tulip BullshitCoin

Such emotion. Not good for the bottom line.

NiggaPleeze's picture

But network effect isn't just about technology.

Right. How are your Beanie Babies trading?  Network effects can have legs but in the end currency is a store of value and hence needs really long legs.  Gold's legs are, say, 2,600 years at this point.  In 20 years nobody will know what BullshitCoin was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Zabm6seN4

No need for that, I already know you are an immature maroon.

No, there aren't. That is a ludicrous position to take and you know it. When you buy a bitcoin, you have not just 1/21,000,000th of all the bitcoin that will ever exist, you also have 1/21,000,000th of all the Satoshi that will ever exist.

Again your limited capacity to engage in superficial thinking shows in spades.  There are an infinite number of bitcoins, as there is no limit on the subdivision, and it is essentially arbitrary whether you call what is now 0.001 of a bitcoin a bitcoin or not. 

The superficial analysis problem is based on the assumption that Bitcoin has some inherent value.  It doesn't.  I can fork Bitcoin in a day.  Yeah, I won't have miners, but that's where my "hilarious" comment about governments and banks comes in - they can have instant miners.  As can any other technology or variation.  Thus, the value of 21 million bitcoins is, say $1500, to compensate for the labor needed to produce another 21 million of them.

Reason this is important is because superficial thinkers may think of bitcoin in terms of shares of a company.  If a company is worth $1 million, because of the value it produces, no matter how many shares you issue, the total value of the company is still $1 million.  But the value of Bitcoin is entirely based on the illusion that it has a limited supply, but it doesn't, it has an infinite supply.  So to play a psychological trick (which changes no fundamentals but shows the fallacy on which BullshitCoin is based), imagine the initial maximum were 21 trillion trillion trillion Bitcoin, instead of 21 million.  Nobody would have taken it seriously.  But in fact there were that many, and infinitely more, from the get.

Note the network effect is nothing like what gives value to, say FB.  Moving from FB to another platform requires a tremendous amount of work.  On the other hand, another cryptocurrency can immediately take off if, say, Amazon decides to accept it, as opposed to Bitcoin.  That is one actor (out of very many) who can utterly undermine the flimsy "network effect" of BullshitCoin.  I bet even Burning Man could start it's own cryptocurrency just by accepting it at their venue.  As could the NFL.  Or, really, anyone, which is my point.

A 51% attack has to be maintained forever for the effects not to disappear at the end of the attack (those who accepted fraudulent bitcoins during the attack lose whatever they traded for them).

No, it doesn't.  The other nodes will accept the 51% and incorporate that blockchain into their own, thinking the other 49% were wrong. So that goes for new transactions.  But what about the historical blockchain, that the 49% have stored on their drives?  Yeah, you would have to keep the "fork" up for a while to effect that.  But, there's no need!  All the new blockchain has to do is spend all of the "legacy" blockchain (by creating new records) to go wherever  they want them to go.  So the $1 million you thought you had in your Bullshit wallet, actually willl be somewhere else.  Even if there is a historical path to your looted wallet.

Not really, that just creates a hardfork. The remaining 49% will be on the original chain.

Right, and SSL, which had vastly more years of development effort, is completely secure.  Oh, wait ....  People don't even understand the code, or the constants used in it.  There is no absolute check that the number of bitcoins in the blockchain does not exceed 21 million.  So please, do enlighten me, how is this limit enforced if a majority of the nodes don't enforce it by fabricating blocks?

By the way a hardfork is when you intentionally create another currency, not when you attack the existing one.  Frankly you seem not to understand the technology at all.

No, you can't. You can only sell it for fiat and then spend that somewhere anonymously.

Again, you are totally wrong.  Push comes to shove people will deal directly with gold coins.  It's even easier than accepting bitcoin, except currently there is no need for it.  But your bitcoin will be utterly worthless without the internet.  Have fun spending bitcoin in Puerto Rico.  I'm quite sure I could get anything I want there with my gold coins.

Such emotion. Not good for the bottom line.

LOL, you don't even have a clue what is emotional.  Par for the course,

VD's picture

my neygrah, dont engage the tmoroon -- he dumber than a sack of no-coinz, and is the ultimate bagholder of the ponzi flavor du jour.

 

peep diz & at end he does ditty on btc:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v3DijocMjQ&t=147s

 

it'll take you a few minutes to fork and/or build ur own blockchain; to wit:

 

 

import java.lang.reflect.Array;

 

 

import java.util.Arrays;

 

 

   

 

/**

 

 

 

 

*/

 

 

public class Block {

 

 

   

 

private int previousHash;

 

 

private String[] transactions;

 

 

   

 

private int blockHash;

 

 

   

 

public Block(int previousHash, String[] transactions) {

 

 

this.previousHash = previousHash;

 

 

this.transactions = transactions;

 

 

   

 

Object[] contens = {Arrays.hashCode(transactions), previousHash};

 

 

this.blockHash = Arrays.hashCode(contens);

 

 

   

 

}

 

 

   

 

public int getPreviousHash() {

 

 

return previousHash;

 

 

}

 

 

   

 

public String[] getTransaction() {

 

 

return transactions;

 

 

}

 

 

   

 

public int getBlockHash() {

 

 

return blockHash;

 

 

}

 

}

                }   }  

 

}  

 

 

 

tmosley's picture

Yes, fork it a trillion times and then come back and tell us all about how you destroyed bitcoin.

I'll be right here.

tmosley's picture

>In 20 years nobody will know what BullshitCoin was.

You should use your psychic powers for something more productive.

>No need for that, I already know you are an immature maroon.

Your supposition that governments or central banks can create anything of value is ridiculous, and you know it.

>There are an infinite number of bitcoins, as there is no limit on the subdivision

How can you be so stupid? Even under cognitive dissonance, your lizard brain should take over, and even THAT isn't stupid enough to think that a fraction of a thing is the same as a whole thing.

>Yeah, I won't have miners, but that's where my "hilarious" comment about governments and banks comes in - they can have instant miners

Where are they going to get them? The sky? And any government coin is going to be fucked up and no-one is going to want it. 

> But the value of Bitcoin is entirely based on the illusion that it has a limited supply, but it doesn't

Ridiculous. Other cryptos aren't fungible with bitcoin, just like shares of Jake's Burger Shak, Inc, aren't fungible with IBM. 

>I bet even Burning Man could start it's own cryptocurrency just by accepting it at their venue.  As could the NFL.  Or, really, anyone, which is my point.

So? Competition is good.

>No, it doesn't.  The other nodes will accept the 51% and incorporate that blockchain into their own, thinking the other 49% were wrong

That isn't how it works. Once the attack stops, the real chain catches up and overwrites the other chain. If you don't know this, you aren't qualified to comment on technical issues regarding BTC.

>Right, and SSL, which had vastly more years of development effort, is completely secure

That isn't a reply to what I said. Forks have nothing to do with security.

>So please, do enlighten me, how is this limit enforced if a majority of the nodes don't enforce it by fabricating blocks?

The minority of nodes continue on the old chain, unaffected. When the "51% fork" happens, and they start transmitting data about bitcoin #21,000,001, the minority nodes will read such data as nonsense, and drop it.

>By the way a hardfork is when you intentionally create another currency, not when you attack the existing one

Yes, but you are technologically illiterate, so you have confused an attack with a fork.

>I'm quite sure I could get anything I want there with my gold coins.

Do I need to post the Quark laughing video again? "I'm confident I can spend gold coins." That's a baseless assertion, and a stupid one. Mark Dice can't even get people to accept gold and silver for fucking free. But you are going to become a gold dealing mogul. Get it together.

NiggaPleeze's picture

Your supposition that governments or central banks can create anything of value is ridiculous, and you know it.

We are talking about cryptocurrency, are we not?  News flash:  they have ZERO, absolutely none, intrinsic value.  They are worth even less than US dollars, which at least are made of paper or metal, which has some value, and the law part about them being legal tender for all debts, which Bitcoin utterly lacks in every respect.  Cryptocurrencies have exactly ZERO value, except for the TMosley's of the world who bet their house on them.  Actually, that does bring hope of poetic justice in the universe.

And government does create things of value.  Roads come to mind, I value them very much.  Good luck doing anything useful with your BullshitCoins once the tulip bubble collapses.

a fraction of a thing is the same as a whole thing

Actually it is again your utterly superficial thinking.  There can be an infinite number of bitcoins even if the sum of all bitcoins is 21 million (assuming for the sake of argument that this is a firm limit, which it isn't).  The sum of an infinite series of numbers can be finite, as, say, the sum of 1/2^n, where n goes from 0 to infinity, which as a sum equal to 1.  Again, the point I am making, but you cannot grasp, is there is an infinite number of bitcoins.  Even if the sum of all bitcoins is 21 million (which it isn't).  Again, this wouldn't matter if bitcoins actually had intrinsic value, but they don't, their only value is based on the specious argument that there is a limited number of them.

Other cryptos aren't fungible with bitcoin, just like shares of Jake's Burger Shak, Inc, aren't fungible with IBM.

Yes, but shares of Bear & Stearns are fungible with shares of Countrywide Mortgage.

So? Competition is good.

Right, but it seems lost to you that your entire argument is predicated on there being a limited suppply of cryptocurrencies.

If you think about it, the only limit on the value of a cryptocurrency is mass sheep movement.  As long as the next idiot is willing to pay more for your BullshitCoin, you'll make money.  Just like tulips.  Until people figured out that anybody can make more tulips.  Duh.

Once the attack stops, the real chain catches up and overwrites the other chain.

So if my "fake" 51% were to spend your Bullshit Wallet contents, you're saying I'd have to keep the attack up only long enough until 51% of the "real" nodes accepted that transaction.  And how long is that, in your profound scientific analysis?  Ten minutes, right?

That isn't a reply to what I said. Forks have nothing to do with security.

Again you just don't get it.  You are arguing that the BullshitCoin algorithm is secure and can detect and thwart attacks.  That is a question of security, not forking.  SSL also uses an algorithm to prevent attacks, but a deep flaw is discovered in that algorithm, oh, every few months.  Get it now, Einstein?  The difference is that in general compromising an SSL connection does not permit re-allocation of Bullshit Wallets, with no way to get it bac (no bank to call, you know, those worthless institutions that create no value at all, except, say, when someone robs your account).

bitcoin #21,000,001, the minority nodes will read such data as nonsense, and drop it.

Erhh, no,they won't, as I noted, there is no cap of 21 million.  There is no check for that AFAIK, and I've looked into it.  Show me where this cap is in the code please?

you are technologically illiterate, so you have confused an attack with a fork.

Actually I have a MS in computer science with an A+ average from a top university, and have programmed for many years, including work in network security.  What is your qualification, aside from none?  Obviously, since it is you confusing a fork with an attack.

Mark Dice can't even get people to accept gold and silver for fucking free.

FWIW those people would have preferred a fucking penny over 21 million bitcoin.  You are such an utter fucking moron.  I'll even take your fucking gold coins for free.  You are a waste of carbon.  Fuck off, dipshit.


kochevnik's picture

Bitcoin is tokenized energy.  All your talking points are debunked.  You are simply regurgitating hoping everyone on ZH caught Alzheimers

Spaced Out's picture

Lol, an MS in computer science? That would take smarts, whereas you believe 100,000,000 = infinity? Hahahaha

NiggaPleeze's picture

Never wrote anything remotely like that, but obviously you are too ignorant/stupid to understand.  I suggest remedial mathematics but, no doubt, that wouldn't help someone in your predicament.  Hahahahaahahaha..

Golden Showers's picture

I am really enjoying this dialogue.

Perhaps if you took fiat and cast it over the imaginary numbers you'd get the fractal you are looking for.

T, honestly, I think the point is that there is simply no asset or resource to determine the value of either fiat or bitcoin through tangible means, scarcity. I don't have a problem with your enthusiasm or defense of bitcoin. On the other hand, if Fiat can be printed at will, at least blockchain gives the impression of decentralizing power from the sole fiat producers.

I really really like reading you two tear it up. I'm trying to understand.

Just for the sake of arguement, with respect, neither fiat nor bitcoin do anything. People do things. People have labor power, given to them by god. One has natural rights given by god. The right to travel, to associate, etc.

So on the macro level what is changing a fiat for a fiat? The point is not the value of a fiat, but the value of a person's labor unit. Remember when you could put your unspent computer time to look for ET through SETI? Bitcoin is sort of the same thing. I highly doubt we manufactured real aliens out of all that data moving about. Decentralization is the key here, and as we see the trend is that nation states are taking an interest and centralizing authority over this bitcoin stuff. So hat tip.

T, with all respect, drive it like you stole it and then crash that motherfucker in a ditch. Fiat is Fiat, vapor is vapor. Labor power is the issue to me. And people who suffer to work by choice are getting fucked. When the, excuse me, fiat chain is decentralized and people realize that they are worked and taxed to death the bitcoin fiat argument is moot.

I don't like dialectics. I want solutions.

 

kochevnik's picture

Amazing American illiteracy not understanding division operator

NiggaPleeze's picture

That's not even a sentence (at least, not in English, perhaps in dumbspeak it means something).

VD's picture

that happened for a min in 2013.

 

"Satoshi" in his white paper mentions the majority nodes must be trustworthy. who can print unlimited FIAT and buy these idiotcoinz at whatever idiotic prices? idk...

 

niggggrey puhleaz is on point.

Stuck on Zero's picture
 Wozniak is so mistaken about BitCoin being "conflict-free." Drug deals, slavery, human traficking, and the arms trade are being propelled, in part, by BitCoin. Not by gold. Some of the biggest traders in BitCoin are the North Koreans.
Idaho potato head's picture

And of course bit coins could never be used in a 'conflict scenario". ransomware comes to mind, GTFO Steve!