|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: with quantum computing becoming mainstream...
I try no to think about it, because it asks more questions than it answers. What will happen with current cryptocurrencies once quantum computing becomes viable. Even before it reaches mainstream some powerful hands could break current cryptography. The defense of blockchain is because it's hard to crack, if it's not hard anymore then it becomes vulnerable.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but the future is crazy to think about.
Tell me about it. Mind boggling.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: I try no to think about it, because it asks more questions than it answers. What will happen with current cryptocurrencies once quantum computing becomes viable. Even before it reaches mainstream some powerful hands could break current cryptography. The defense of blockchain is because it's hard to crack, if it's not hard anymore then it becomes vulnerable.
Yeah exactly. So something will need to change I'm sure. I suppose when computers eventually rule us they'll figure something out. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I suppose when computers eventually rule us they'll figure something out. 
Haha, singularity. I am scared of that.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
About Hyperinflation.
I have been working on a theory about that so let me know what you think if you so choose to read this.
When it comes to our commonly traded tenders, you sort of have to throw common sense out the window up to a point. Fiat currency does not behave like normal commodity backed currencies. Instead of being pegged to a commodity, fiat currency becomes a commodity itself which allows its price to fluctuate and this is where things can get a little weird.
Inflation has two ways of explaining it.
One is the commonly held idea that things naturally become more expensive over time. Now, when you apply this to a long-term valuation chart where each inflation drives up the cost a little each year, the curve becomes parabolic (x2). Approaching inflation from this point of view, it becomes inevitable that hyperinflation will occur for any fiat currency.
Another approach is not that everything is becoming more expensive but it is that our fake currencies are loosing a little bit of their value each year (a.k.a. devaluation). Since fiat currency is not physical and has no intrinsic value, it is impossible to apply any sort of science to it therefore using economics to analyze or predict its movements is pointless. So, if we approach this from the devaluation point of view, as long as people think that the currency has at least some value, hyperinflation cannot happen. The valuation curve will drop steadily for a while but will level off and decrease very slowly.
Math: since I forgot how to write up those sum formulas, I will use spreadsheet formulas. For this, let A1 be 100 for both approaches
where i is the inflation rate for that year
Inflation (adding a percentage):
A2 = A1 + (A1 * i)
Deflation (subtracting a percentage):
A2 = A1 - (A1 * i)
When graphing inflation adding a percentage, eventually it will lead to a nearly vertical line straight up.
When graphing devaluation subtracting a percentage, eventually it will lead to a nearly horizontal line into perpetuity.
My argument in support of devaluation is based on observations that the economies of scale and technology have driven down the cost of doing business far more than inflation has increased it since the mid 1970's when the U.S. ended the gold standard. To get an accurate comparison, you need a common point of reference. I like to use gold as a reference because it always had, still has, and always will have intrinsic value. If you compare how much you can buy with an ounce of gold today versus what you could buy with an ounce of gold in the 1960's, you can see that you get more with that ounce of gold today on average then you did back then.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to fall into the second camp myself. I also use the gold example as well, and for the same reasons. But her's the kicker...
On a macro scale, I think things keep the intrinsic value that we as humans assign to it, just the number changes with whatever currency / money we're using. That's why the richest people are in basic human necessities like real estate and oil. We value those things as long as we value living comfortably. This is the part that never changes, we compare stuff to one another and get a sense of what's important... which is the basis of supply and demand. Anyway, so the currency changes and nothing else. Take gold, and let's go back a few thousand years, an ounce of gold then got you a hot meal and a nice garment. An ounce of a gold right now is $1,320 USD an ounce. Most nice suits are at least $1k and a nice meal is going to be anywhere from $100-$200 for the family.
Thousands of years later it's still almost the same. But this is on a large big picture scale. Like with quantum physics, things are quite the opposite on the micro scale. On a micro scale (days, years, decades) gold fluctuates or so it seems because our base point of reference is the dollar. It's the most liquid. It's where our minds our on a day-to-day basis and it's just how we look at the economy... through the eyes of the dollar. Gold will go up and down, up and down, up and down, etc. This is why some people are against investing in gold. If you buy gold and it goes down in price, then boom it's a bad. Which it's not bad to invest in... it's just a long term instrument.
It's the same thing with inflation or devaluation. In the short term inflation is good. We get more stuff for "less". So you're absolutely correct. I mean Japan is doing that right now with quantitative easing, and on purpose to save their economy. We mitigate debt too, double bonus. And in fact, right now, with the situation we're in... I think devaluation is the only thing we have going for us to save the country's economy before eventually dropping the dollar like a bad habit. But this is only because we repeated the same mistakes throughout history... again.
The catch is, devaluing is akin to declaring bankruptcy. In the short term it's great... what a relief it is. In the long term it's gonna hurt. People's savings will be wiped out since it's now worthless. 100 years ago, you could buy a Coke for a nickel. Now the same coke is going to cost you a $1 or $1.50. In fact, the whole reason the Fed exists is to try and control this rate of decline (they do more damage than good IMO though but that's a different story). Greed and fear (the driving emotions behind supply and demand) and lack of big picture type education has brought us to this point.
So, if we can prevent hyperinflation then I agree with you. I don't see any other way out of this mess. But it's not an ideal solution, it's a band-aid because we screwed up. In the long term though, it's just another nail in the coffin for the dollar as we know it today.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Now, on to the future. Paper currency will die in developed countries. Over the past 100 years humanity has had a digital revolution. That's going nowhere. As population keeps on increasing but land and resources don't, we'll have to find a way to stop using paper for this. And we have it... digital crypto-currencies.
First of course all trends indicate that the population of the world will level off and reach sustainability levels this century.
Second there is no problem in terms of resources for creating currencies. Not to mention even that at least for the US currency paper isn't used, but even if it is producing paper for currencies would be a minor blimp in terms of total paper demand.
Fourth there is a difference between digital economic transactions and crypto currencies as the currently exist. Current crypto currencies have basically the same problems that currencies owned by banks (which is not what happens now) which used to happen. And they are obviously too volatile to be allowed to support the world economy much less a nations economy. Might be a viable solution for those country that cannot manage to stabilize their own currency but that is it.
So although one might suppose that electronic transactions might become the only norm, they will still be based on a 'currency' that the government, not a market (or worse markets) owns and maintains.
|
|
|
|
|
1) In regards to your first point. I did hear about that. I tend not to guess when a trend will end however since nobody can predict the future... no matter what people say. I do know at some point it'll have to taper off though. The question is when.
2) In regards to your second point. The first part of it, I'll admit it's a loooooong way away, but out of 4 trillion trees on the planet we go through 15 billion a year right now. This will only increase if we have more people. And the entire world knows we're getting away from paper at some point. Which is my point. But yeah, the demand isn't high right now as in this second. But I'm talking big picture stuff here. I thought it was evident in my posts, but I guess not when on CP. The second part of it is simply restating what I said already. So, thanks. 
3) I'm fully aware of the difference. And I'm not going to elaborate on volatility again. If things change the volatility will change. Volatility is a sign of where it's at right now, not where it's going. And there are key fundamental economical reasons it's the way it is that will change in the future. But I digress and have no desire to get into this... again... on CP... again... with the usual peeps that argue... again.
4) To the fourth point, that's what I've been saying all along. Try again bro.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: since nobody can predict the future
So when you said "Paper currency will die in developed countries" that wasn't a prediction?
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but out of 4 trillion trees on the planet we go through 15 billion a year right now.
Can't speak to the rest of the world but in the US paper comes from tree farms. More paper usage means more trees, not less.
Paper Chase | Ecology Global Network[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And the entire world knows we're getting away from paper at some point
Another prediction. One not supported by facts. That prediction was made by many people over decades but paper usage continues to rise.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: If things change the volatility will change.
Products in the open market are always volatile. That is why governments control currency to insure stability. Rightfully so since history is full of examples of market based commodity exchange systems that failed.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And there are key fundamental economical reasons it's the way it is that will change in the future
Another prediction. A fuzzy one and one not supported by current information. Current information might suggest a trend towards electronic transactions but only one based on government currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how everyone believes the banks are going to squash cryptocurrencies.
No they won't, they would just handle it the same way as every other "currency". And earn some money in the process.
Authorities is a completely different question, many countries has already outlawed them.
Sweden is more pragmatic, the tax authorities simply defines them as a commodity like any other, and demand that the profits are taxed the same way as anything else.
You make a profit, you pay a percentage.
You have a bitcoin farm, you pay VAT and income tax.
Simples.
|
|
|
|
|
That is not an unreasonable approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. I don't think banks will squash them... they can't. Technology is bigger than banks. I totally agree they'll accept them after they make changes to keep them in the power loop.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: What to do, what to do.
Its just too expensive to buy anyway.
One bitcoin is 358762 Indian Rupees!!
 
[I could keep adding the same emoticons but somewhere the firewalls would kick in]
|
|
|
|
|
I could bite my ass not having bought bitcoins two years ago! Now I would bite my ass if I would buy bitcoins! The whole thing is too volatile and in-transparent to me and I don't understand enough about it to risk my money.
The cryptocurrency aside, the technology behind, block-chain, might be more interesting, depending in which industry you are in.
|
|
|
|
|
You must remember: Bitcoin existed long before "Bitcoin inc".
Bitcoin itself not a scam. It may-or-may not be overvalued. Just like a single tulip cost bazillions in the 17th century (Tulip mania - Wikipedia). Tulips were not a scam either, just extremely overvalued.
As for "Bitcoin inc" they might be scammers, does not mean that Bitcoin is.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Fair point and agreed that the company mentioned does come across as a possible scam - may not be, but that's how it looks.
|
|
|
|
|
Giskard:
Bitcoin is of course part a scam and part thin slice bread, or better yet, snake oil or cough syrup... 
Joking aside you can comparte Bitcoin to the birth of Coca Cola... it started as a do it all, health beverage based on Coca leaves (where you extract Cocaine) and Kola nut which is a fruit rich in caffeine. It was served at room temperature so tasted like sh*t... that was John Pemberton and if you come to Atlanta there's a beautiful place called Pemberton plaza which houses "The World of Coca Cola".
Alas, as a medicine, Coca Cola was a deep scam and today, original Coca Cola would be banned as it contains not only high concentrations of caffeine, but also traces of Cocaine.
But, ironically Pemberton never became rich from his invention. He died of stomach cancer, being a morphine addict and sold most of his rights to the beverage to keep up with his addictions.
But Coca Cola, later became a wild success and today it's an empire (based on Atlanta) which sells billions and has hundreds different brands and tastes. But the "secret sauce" of Coca-Cola still is "ground zero" for the full corporation.
So with that in mind, Bitcoin might fare equally well. In the future we might have a Satoshi Nakamoto plaza somewhere in the US, Japan, Russia or whatever.
Millions would be made with Bitcoin, but don't just yet dump you're full life savings on it.
Dutch family sells everything to bet on bitcoins
You must follow the "Wences rule for investing", created by my fellow Latin American Wenceslao Casares (sounds Russian, but he's actually from Argentina, which casually means "Place where the money is").
The simple formula for becoming a bitcoin millionaire, according to one of its innovators
Just take 1% of your current state and invest it on Bitcoin, and let it mature (or rot) for 5 to 10 years.
If all goes to hell, you've only lost 1% of your household. If everything goes as planned, you would have a 500% return on your investment.
In the mean time, just buy the world a Coke and live in perfect harmony....
Mad Men "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" series finale, Coca Cola TV ad
|
|
|
|
|
Once the feds figure out how to tax it, it will just be another bookkeeping technique. Right now, it's about "tax-free" bartering.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To run on Azure, or to run Azure on it? 
|
|
|
|
|
So either it's so bloated that runs like a dog and needs huge power
... (echoes of ms office - good to see standards maintained),
or it's going to help supercomputers run like a dog
(so non-super people can see/count how often it stops to relieve itself???)
outside the states - well Asia for sure, azure runs like a dog (in fact the entire ms cloud - 14 hours to install office 365 down a fiber link, ffs).
it's no wonder google is winning.
|
|
|
|
|
lopati: roaming wrote: it's no wonder google is winning.
Are they? Just about every article I see on cloud provider market share places AWS first, followed by Azure, and then Google is a fairly distant third.
MS is also attributing a huge chunk of its growth as of late to Azure and related services.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are going to rank an article as 1 then please have the nerve to say why.
|
|
|
|
|
I personnaly did not cast any vote to your article (I suppose here you are talking about the Bowling scores one). However, I flagged it as a "wrong type" because, imho, you do not explain anything about your implementation. It consists only of a brief introduction, three screenshots, a "How to use the code" section, and short "History" and "License" sections.
I suspect the persons who have voted 1 have the feeling that your article is way below their expectations of a CP article. Maybe if you would mind putting a little more efforts on the "Implementation" part, then these people may modify their votes accordingly.
Anyway, I would say chilling a bit would not do any harm to anyone 
Kindly.
selfish adj. Defines someone who does not think of me.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you expect. The article discusses the iterative nature of scoring a game of bowling. The algorithm is posted. There is not much more to the code than the scoring algorithm which is posted in plain text.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
