Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Does it make sense to spend it on anything at the start of the bull run?
Replaced what I spent with fiat, don't worry. Just using it so I wasn't leaving any real details with some website I wouldn't trust with my scrote flakes (that's normal, right?).
Do the same any time I'm buying beer or...beer
in Amsterdam.If the bull run amounts to less than a 45% increase, it certainly does. Another way to look at it is cashing out to bank some profit, though the amount 'spent' here is probably trivial.
Exactly. Would've been a 63% discount ignoring CGT but the subscription was only worth $100 so I bought the sub and sold $50 worth to withdraw for the tax porpoises. Out of the cryptos they accept BCH had increased the most out of what I had - it amounted to a hefty discount & I could sub from a dummy email so it made sense.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
As delighted as I am to see the price increasing, it's worrying how quickly it's going. Nice, gradual growth is always better to avoid mass irrationality
Yeah, it's all moving too fast. I'd prefer if we had slow, sustainable growth while building support along the way. Otherwise we'll have more 80%+ crashes in the future. We're all in this psy-op together.🤨
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Where's the humour?26000 Elephants wrote: »Wow, this crypto thing has really sucked away all your sense of humour, hasn't it?
Oh right, you smiled at something you said which wasn't funny. Heh. Good one.26000 Elephants wrote: »Bitcoin was going to be the disruptor, right? "Be Your Own Bank"? Yet you are quoting a fluff piece by the Chief Propagandists of the Evil Banksters to make a point? Jayzis, bitcoin, what has happened to you?
:)
aka26000 Elephants wrote: »Nothing you have said there makes any sense to anyone who hasnt been sucked into the hopium fueled world of Crypto. Data entry as smart contract? Are you on crack?? Automated????? WHAAAAAAT? Why on earth do I need a smart contract to capture data? Anyway, "data validation", using the canonical meaning of the term, is a task that can be handled procedurally: capturing user data and validating is not something that needs global consesus, outside of a very few rare edge cases. The fact that so many mundane tasks that will never, in a million years, require smart contracts or global consesus to achieve, validate or verify are TOP of that list shows the #1 problem with blockchain: nobody really knows what the hell its about.
Dear christ, just read up instead of fighting against a concept you're arguing against but in the dark about.26000 Elephants wrote: »I haven't read up on any of this so it doesn't exist and isn't needed, waahwaahwaah??????W????HHHHAA?????T????
You don't think automation exists? Tell that to the auto industry and call-centre marketers. Smart contracts can interact with eachother. Routine tasks can be programmed to regulatory spec across one or many contracts. Companies are always looking at repetitive tasks that humans are crap at to see if they can whittle the process cost down, and they're obsessed with traceability.
You don't "need" a smart contract to capture data, you use a smart contract or a slew of them if it's more efficient/cheaper than human equivalents.
Stop whinging “But WHYYYYY does it NEEEEEEED it THO?????????!?!?!?!??”
If it simplifies a business process, is cheaper than hiring some flesh imbecile to fumble through the work and it innately increases trust, it will be used.26000 Elephants wrote: »That pamphlet you cited (which mentions Bitcoin more often than it mentions Ethereum, so i have know idea why you are bitching about "why u bring up Bitcoin?")
It mentions Bitcoin as it was the birth of a workable consensus mechanism across a massively distributed network focused on value transfer. It mentions blockchain and smart contracts a lot more than it mentions Bitcoin because they’re interested in how their business processes can be refined. Ethereum is by far the leader in that space and if a company wants to work with a mature open protocol with the most dev tools and the most devs, for now it’s going to be Ethereum.
Oh good, the “You can’t expect EVERYTHING on a blockchain” argument, as if somebody had said everything should be.26000 Elephants wrote: »...in most cases, once you get into requirement gathering and more detailed functional design most of these schemes fall down. The original basis for saying "X, but with Blockchain!" falls apart, when you realise that there was never a need for blockchain in the first place. I have yet to come accross a design involving a blockchain-like component where we didnt design it out after a few weeks.
Not everything needs a blockchain, well done. Some things will be better handled using blockchain.
Ernst & Young and these guys must be barking up the wrong tree because you’ve done your research say so.
So, the DAO (a bug in a contract) and a state change which neutralised the DAO attack and siphoned funds back to the rightful owners (not a rollback, unlike the actual rollback Bitcoin had. CODE IS LAW! - erm, when it suits them) are reason enough to ignore the project. But you're "in" Bitcoin since 2014... Hypocritical and myopic, but okay. You’re as bad as Shillbert tbh, you can’t be bothered reading about what you’re arguing about.26000 Elephants wrote: »i havent been that interested in Ethereum to be honest, as i said earlier. Adfter the DAO (LOL!) and the split (ROFL) and Silbert trolling you with Eth Classis for years, it was hard to take seriously. The rollback (CODE IS LAW!) and the moves to PoS, sharding and other stuff - meh. As much a Bitcoin is a madhouse run by lunatics intent on self-immolation, you have to admire the fact that its something you could (at one time anyway) buy stuff with.
45% said they were working on public chains. Need for tokens, coins, exchanges, etc.26000 Elephants wrote: »No. The article mentioned nothing about "testing". If you are going to pick and choose what you want to believe in that advertising flyer then we are wasting our time. Those guys were asked a question, and the majority said they were deploying private and permissioned blockchains. No need for tokens, coins, exchanges, etc.
A wise man once said “If you are going to pick and choose what you want to believe in that advertising flyer then we are wasting our time.”
They’re testing (and using in production within the confines of their own businesses) for their own purposes and on private chains so that they can make the mistakes they’re going to make and it won’t be publicly broadcasted. If they have a view to moving onto mainnet they can swap to testnet if they want some outside auditors to attack the contract for a bounty, that’s sensible.26000 Elephants wrote: »Also, testnets tend to reflect the ultimate Mainnets, so you dont test a public blockchain with a private version, do you?
No. A database is as secure and immutable as you need it to be.
Companies, organisations and governments the world over can see the benefit of a blockchain over a database. But you’re correct, of course... I suppose you think ID2020 isn’t happening as well.
Let me guess - “But WHHYYYYyyyyYYY do they NEEEeeDDD IiiiitTTT THOOO?????”
It’s ten years in and we’re only just on the cusp of scaling properly, security and building out dev tools comes first for obvious reasons. The aim isn’t to WANT to 51% attack the network, it’s a fraud prevention technology. It's security against a fraud because the person who may think of committing it will know that everybody on the network will know of it. Fair point on Bitcoin being “wait until we are rich”, it’s a pointless & redundant speculative nest egg for now at least.26000 Elephants wrote: »There are very few business use cases where the overriding requirement is "If the majority in the deal want to randomly reverse or change a record for no reason, then they can" I seriously cannot think of any. Its one of the main reasons why, after 10 years of knocking around, the only large scale use cases are as a currency ledger (bitcoin) and some script-enabled state machine (Ethereum), where in both cases the overwhelming utility is "waiting until we are rich"
The contract may currently rely on a “push” from AXA for the flight delay time but it will eventually use a multi-source oracle which confirms whether to pay or not. How can it be redundant if it’s automating away actions which humans previously had a part in? Your mindset is a bit like the criminals JF and PPL, you expect everything now instead of in time. So why are you "in Bitcoin since 2014"?26000 Elephants wrote: »Fizzy is a good example, Lurent did well with it. But in reality, he does nothing more than my code does 150,000 times a day: takes bets, pays out on a win. Satoshi dice was doing this years ago. I heard Laurent speak once where he addmitted that the regulatory hurdles with offering insurance in this way meant that Fizzy had to be broken into 3 parts: Business works out your odds (risk), finance creates an invoice (price) and finally the web api creates the event. But the key thing is that the payment is not directly triggered by the contract. Its handled the exact same way as before (but quicker). So not quite the trustless, "code is law" thing you might think it is. Still interesting, though. But seems strangelly redundant: I can see a world in the near future where insurance companies will be allowed to operate purely in this manner, without regulation. So, its pretty moot.
So bugs are allowed to be fixed and it’s not the end of the world? Madness. Well, there are more exploits to be found, right now. It doesn’t mean Intel’s tech is worthless. Just the same as a contract bug doesn’t mean Ethereum is worthless.26000 Elephants wrote: »Intel fixed the bug.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement