CryptoCurrency Mining with GPUs *spawn*

Not really a prediction. Its tied to the release of PoS. If as scheduled, then by June.

 

Yeah, at this point I'm done here. One more on the ignore list.

 

Proof of Work, Economy of cryptocurrencies under Proof of work, Smart Contracts and more, from the idiots at stanford.

https://www.scs.stanford.edu/17au-cs244b/labs/projects/porat_pratap_shah_adkar.pdf



Definition of what Intrinsic value is in relation to what, from the idiots at forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/intrinsic-value/



What is blockchain and why it exists, by the idiots at ieeexplore.ieee.org

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8922632



What is the NFT tech from the idiots at financial times and VISA

https://www.ft.com/content/852b7961-51ee-43a3-8caf-f39bb479655c
https://www.ft.com/content/852b7961-51ee-43a3-8caf-f39bb479655c



But its easier to confidently offer a verdict without knowing the basics, and later pressing ignore button.

 

To me it looks like both sides are being petty about this discussion and are taking cheap shots at each other. I'm not sure this will advance anything, except time

Specifically for you @dskneo what you are doing wrong with posts like the above IMO (besides the tone) is that you are not explicitly saying the precise detail you think somebody else doesn't have a full grasp of, and then you are not offering the explanation based on what you've learned.
Sending people off to read generic stuff about crypto is low effort, and yeah can feel insulting as they might indeed be familiar to say 90% of the contents.

 

Oh man, this thread is suddely quite different. LOL

 

This topic started in page 1, and covered those details if he bothered to start reading from page 1. He was both lazy to read the topic, and started demanding detailed explanations when confronted that he was wrong.

That type of stance, has no place in civilized and academic discussion, or last I checked this was Beyond3d and not neogaf. My tone matched his lack of posture.

 

Faithful to the dogmatic method. If we keep the facts hidden, does the Sun start revolving around the Earth again? Must be very humorous indeed. Pride is the downfall of some, it seems.

 

Is it really a six page student lab paper?

 

I see an itch to throw shade at an individual for bringing proper information to a debate. Assuming I fall for the bait of such a petty comment, from whom does the information have to come from to suit your standards? and why would you pick the academic paper out of all the links I posted, whose authors we know even less of.


POW economics.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2976749.2978341
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9388487
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8864381
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9020129
http://www.joca.cn/EN/abstract/abstract23167.shtml
https://studreadywork.ru/wp-content...sis-of-Two-Phase-Proof-of-Work-in-Bitcoin.pdf
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8674185
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3173574.3174179
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202202
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0736585315301118
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612320300374
https://web.s.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=1931907X&AN=133549558&h=1L6DkDxUFgi/ZhRO/6rbEZZ0sTT1wzH27hIyroLT+fS1eLYpyh2kQJSkq1C2ZczbF5EaLI5VeWupx4cGM6Sf3g==&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=1931907X&AN=133549558

Smart-Contracts
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8257877
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06372
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8756390
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10664-019-09796-5
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15032-7_46
https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00286
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-3444-0_4

NFT
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...gible-tokens-to-aid-wildlife-conservation.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07447
https://www.mdpi.com/2674-1032/1/1/3/htm
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/11/3822
https://theblockchaintest.com/uploads/resources/Ferdinand Regnar-Andre Schweizer-Nils Urbach - NFTs in Practice non-Fungible Tokens as Core Component of a Blockchain Based Event Ticketing Application - 2019.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0007681321002019

Intrinsic Value definition debate.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-021-00491-2




Perhaps the post from your friend actually deserved my response, no? lets read it again, and then pick any of the links above.

 

No need for random links, now I am just worried about your health.

 

Links should be used to illustrate the argument or point you are attempting to make. They should not be the sole content of a counterpoint against rebuttal. Doing so gives the impression that you actually don't know what you are talking about regardless of whether you do or do not.

If you cannot articulate a point and explain why something is how you believe it is, then that again gives the impression that you may not know or understand what you are glorifying, again regardless of how well you may or may not know a subject.

The problem most have is that while you constantly espouse how great NFTs are, you have not provided sufficient explanation of why they are so great. If you truly understand why they are great, you should be able to explain it in such a manner that people here will go, "Hmmmm, I see you have a point." At which point they will either agree, disagree or continue to mull over that point. And the debate may or may not continue.

However, just coming across as saying it's great because I think so and then throwing a bunch of links up does nothing to bolster any point you feel you might be making.

It does not matter whether you feel that opposing views are well educated or not. Your own responses should not be governed by what you think (validly or not) of other people's posts. A well reasoned argument will always garner more consideration even from those that diagree than just shouting out that ... well of course you know better and everyone else is an idiot.

Keep in mind that many people here may have read some of the same material you've read and come to a different conclusion than you have. So just posting links without an explanation of why you feel differently does nothing to support any claims that you make.

Regards,
SB

 

This post can be adressed at a lot of people here btw.


But, it doesn't work in real life, because not a lot of people argue in good faith.

Dskneo, you already know what you know. Don't get drawn into this "debate" here imo. It's a trap

 

I see the trap. But some people here getting themselves into a position where they are caught defending baseless points of view, qualifies them as the ones getting trapped.

I never seen anyone pressing ignore on someone who brings informed arguments to the discussion. Understanding why they were wrong or choosing the but-hurt escape of pressing the ignore button, is up to the backbone of each one of us.

The wonderful thing about written discussions, is that its easy to understand and re-read the context behind every post.

@Putas childish derogatory comment triggered my post with the links. Notice that I did not respond in the same childish manner. If he didn't like that link, heres a few dozen more to pick from. That is all the meaning you need to know behind my post.





There is no merit at all to keep defending the earth is flat, the geocentrism, the antivax movement, when presented with scientific evidence of the opposite. It goes for any topic, crypto included.

If this is no longer a forum where properly argumented technical discussion is welcomed, let me know.

 

Note how multitude of us do not think you are making arguments.

The way you drop those links make me believe you have no idea what scientific is or how universities work.

 

No my friend. That "majority" is seeing the arguments, they just don't like being told wrong.

Sum one of them for me. Just one.

Its a lot less effort to just harass the middle man, instead of having to read the literature and propose why its wrong. Isn't it?

 

Why not explain your point rather than dropping a dozen links? No one goes to read them, you have to persuade them to by reasoning.

 

I did.

No one is interested because it takes effort to learn any subject. It takes even more effort to learn why they lost the argument. With certain types of people, you are not just only fighting the misinformation, as seen above.

With them out of the way, perhaps the discussion can resume in a healthy fashion and with genuine interest.

 

Could you please do a brief summary, just so we're all on the same page? No links required, just your thoughts.

 

crypto good bad actors bad

 

Someone just recoded the Ethereum algorithm on Metal and ARM assembly using the new crypto instructions.

This means the M1 Max GPU now hits over 100 MH/s at 30 Watt and the CPU get over 10 MH/s at 20 Watt running the against the test pool.