Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the TSLAQ and entities fighting Tesla's growth are an order of magnitude larger than any Crypto.
Talking Sovereign Countries, entire industries and businesses trying to make Tesla fail or slow.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Crowded Mind
- Start date
Talking Sovereign Countries, entire industries and businesses trying to make Tesla fail or slow.
mzairboy
Member
I've imagined this for a long time. A world with a connected grid and Tesla products. During the day your solar array is making electric and selling it to the neighbor or charging your powerwall. The sale of those electrons are kept in a “electron bank”. Later in the week you go on a road trip and supercharge and pay using credits in your “electron bank” from the solar you sold to the factory down the road. Integrated into the Tesla Pay App, you can purchase your groceries using excess solar you produced. Electricity is everywhere, and I can see autobidder being a huge component of producing, storing, and selling electricity “coins” in a shared and connected grid. When everyone has a powerwall+solar, everyone becomes their own utility and the possibilities are endless.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
The question I have - and for which I do not have an answer - is whether the creation or utilization of crypto can sidestep the utilities in the new energy economy. If using a new currency for energy arbitrage can somehow accelerate the irrelevance of the dinosaur utilities that will fight tooth and nail for survival just like fossils, then I think that is exactly what Tesla is aiming at.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Coal fought "tooth and nail" as well, they're not doing so hot right now. As soon as the need for something peaks, the lobby is neutered. Hopefully Powerwall+ plays a big role in putting utilities back in their place. It's astonishing how much deference we give to corporations already handed such extraordinary monopoly privilege.
I believe this is a key component of Ponzi schemes. The scheme needs to find a rationalization to disincentivize early redemption. Sort of like, we will pay you even more if you help us by locking up your investment (staking your investment). The more you give us the more you make, yeah, that's the ticket (a lottery ticket) Haha.
Staking is a horrible idea if I understand it correctly but FOMO trumps all horrible ideas so staking will be welcomed and defended vigorously.
There might be a protection against staking such as requiring annual redemption/transaction of all coins. This would establish exactly how many Bitcoins exist, protect against various scams, reveal criminal holdings and establish a basis for taxes if any. Of course doing this would further complicate an extraordinarily complicated existing environmental mess IMO.
I really don't mind how this has all gone down. Tesla tried something new. I learned a lot by following along. Tesla then suspended its Bitcoin accrual. And it's interesting to see the results. Nobody was really harmed in this process and Tesla is a billion dollars ahead right now.
It wouldn't bother me if tomorrow Tesla reversed its reversal. It very well might, when it can solve the emissions problem.
The essential thing about Bitcoin is that it places the highest priority on maintaining security. This will probably keep it among the most valuable cryptocurrencies going forward. Nobody has yet been able to crack its proof of work security. I'm guessing that this priority on security is what attracted Tesla to Bitcoin in the first place.
It wouldn't bother me if tomorrow Tesla reversed its reversal. It very well might, when it can solve the emissions problem.
The essential thing about Bitcoin is that it places the highest priority on maintaining security. This will probably keep it among the most valuable cryptocurrencies going forward. Nobody has yet been able to crack its proof of work security. I'm guessing that this priority on security is what attracted Tesla to Bitcoin in the first place.
When you stake you are not risking anything you own, you only risk your winnings you would make if you decided to stake. And you only risk the winnings if you decide that you want to fight the majority, for example by claiming that transactions in the past never happened.
With PoW, 51% attacks could happen if some entity controlled >50% of the mining power. With PoS 51% attacks can only happen if some entity controls >50% of the money supply being staked. So buy $0.5T worth of ETH, stake them and go against the rest by not validating any transaction to crash the network to make all ETH(including your own) worthless. Will probably be hard to motivate for your taxpayers or shareholders, but sure could happen. However the rest of the network can just decide to fork ETH into ETHwithoutEntity by burning all the ETH that was staked by these entities and move on from there like they did with TheDAO. Here you will find a lot of conflicting thoughts that this is a possibility, but then you need to go back to thinking what consensus algorithm means. And if you want be a part of crypto, you need to trust that the majority of all the unknown actors on the network has self interests that align with keeping the network alive.
It should also be noted that some people believe that locking up a large part of the money supply in staking contracts will put a deflationary pressure onto the currency with a possibility of hyperdeflation. Also being able to earn “interest” on a currency might disincentivize spending also leading to deflationary pressure. Some people think this is bad, I myself am not convinced by this argument and would not mind investing in hyperdeflationary assets.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Problem is that as a currency increases in value, so does mining demand. So pumping Doge will lead to increased energy waste by Doge. Maybe Elon can convince Doge to switch to PoS, that would be something. If they manage to do this with a low level of inflation or some form of disinflation or deflation that would be even more epic.
First, I don't see why anyone who holds BTC as a store of value would use it to buy a Tesla. Hardly any did. So this whole canceling transactions thing is a nothing burger. Fact is, if Tesla and Elon did not believe in BTC as a store of value they would have never bought it in the first place and they would have announced they were selling their position. The fact that they are not selling their position contradicts their concerns about energy usage. They had completely understood the thermodynamics of btc mining before purchase. So what we have here are 3 things:
1) a virtue signal to make the leftists happy (we know this to be partially true because, based on pure logic, the official statement and timing of all of this doesn't make much sense----and this is not even getting into the numerous analogies that just blows the "environment" argument out of the water) - so, clap clap, mission accomplished, leftists happy (which will not last long, never does).
2) same day I believe it became known that TSLA had applied for credit program in the USA - same as #1, clap, clap, mission accomplished
3) read the words carefully in that statement----there is alot more going on here because on its face none of it makes sense. USA must dominate mining of BTC. Like everything else, including the phone or computer you are typing on, made from dirty energy in CHINA (though alot of hydro is used for btc mining in China). Back to the point...USA must dominate BTC. This is completely strategic and was hinted at by Thiel not long ago. I believe that Musk and TSLA have a plan to help USA to dominate BTC mining with renewables and other ways maybe we can't fathom. Thiel already doing it in west texas. TSLA will dominate BTC mining with renewables. Total domination and another huge revenue stream while being part of a couple of the greatest transitions in history (sound money, renewables). Do you know anything that Musk gets involved in without the intent to totally dominate for the good of humanity?
1) a virtue signal to make the leftists happy (we know this to be partially true because, based on pure logic, the official statement and timing of all of this doesn't make much sense----and this is not even getting into the numerous analogies that just blows the "environment" argument out of the water) - so, clap clap, mission accomplished, leftists happy (which will not last long, never does).
2) same day I believe it became known that TSLA had applied for credit program in the USA - same as #1, clap, clap, mission accomplished
3) read the words carefully in that statement----there is alot more going on here because on its face none of it makes sense. USA must dominate mining of BTC. Like everything else, including the phone or computer you are typing on, made from dirty energy in CHINA (though alot of hydro is used for btc mining in China). Back to the point...USA must dominate BTC. This is completely strategic and was hinted at by Thiel not long ago. I believe that Musk and TSLA have a plan to help USA to dominate BTC mining with renewables and other ways maybe we can't fathom. Thiel already doing it in west texas. TSLA will dominate BTC mining with renewables. Total domination and another huge revenue stream while being part of a couple of the greatest transitions in history (sound money, renewables). Do you know anything that Musk gets involved in without the intent to totally dominate for the good of humanity?
Coinbase to Enable Dogecoin Trading in Six to Eight Weeks
Coinbase Global Inc. plans to offer joke token Dogecoin on its trading platform in six to eight weeks, the company’s chief executive officer said Thursday.
www.bloomberg.com
Could someone maybe tell Coinbase to hurry up a bit? In 6-8 weeks it might be $0.05 or $50 if the Eloncoin fork actually happens.
I won't defend staking with my life (although I don't mind being a hodler earning interests), maybe other proofs will come.
The point is that defending PoW, right now, is absurd: it wastes a huge amount of energy and it concentrates mining into a few dirty hands that can do economies of scale. Mining is highly centralized. Right now, this is the situation: clean energy is scarce and use it for mining is a waste.
I also don't accept the "bUt tHe eConOmIc aNd FiNaNCiaL SyStEm cOnSuMe MoRe!!" comeback.
Bitcoin is not a currency. It's not used as one. It's perceived as a store of value. So it's not the right comparison.
Brian Sullivan (CNBC/MSNBC) confirming that Colonial Pipeline paid 5 million in Bitcoin in organized crime ransom. Fact.
Crypto continues to be preferred for global criminal enterprises. Yet another unanswered problem for deeply flawed crypto currency.
Tesla needs to get away from crypto. Advancing/facilitating crime is not the mission of Tesla. No “tuning” of algorithms or improved efficiency will change this.
Crypto continues to be preferred for global criminal enterprises. Yet another unanswered problem for deeply flawed crypto currency.
Tesla needs to get away from crypto. Advancing/facilitating crime is not the mission of Tesla. No “tuning” of algorithms or improved efficiency will change this.
Pretty sure more criminals use dollars than Bitcoin. Not that I want people to stop using the dollar, criminals use shoes also and I am not against shoes...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Can't imagine why they would pay them and assume the criminals would then be "honest" and stick to the deal.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
]
Why not?
Sticking to the deal:
A) "costs" the ransomers basically nothing- they weren't gonna get ANOTHER ransom from these folks and unlike dropping off a kidnap victim there's no increased risk of being caught from it.
and
B) Makes it more likely FUTURE victims pay out because the news will leak these guys paid, and got what was promised for the ransom.
and
C) Avoids giving companies even MORE incentive to patch their systems... which "Even after paying the ransom we are still shut down!" would do.
Why not?
Sticking to the deal:
A) "costs" the ransomers basically nothing- they weren't gonna get ANOTHER ransom from these folks and unlike dropping off a kidnap victim there's no increased risk of being caught from it.
and
B) Makes it more likely FUTURE victims pay out because the news will leak these guys paid, and got what was promised for the ransom.
and
C) Avoids giving companies even MORE incentive to patch their systems... which "Even after paying the ransom we are still shut down!" would do.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Why not? If the pipeline operators couldn't fix it on their own what's to stop the criminals from doing it over and over again?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
This doesn't make sense.
If you pay the ransom and they do NOT release the hostage, why would you pay ANOTHER one?
By releasing, you establish paying the ransom GETS YOU SOMETHING.
By not, you teach the opposite lesson.
That doesn't mean someone ELSE won't take a hostage later- in fact just the opposite- PAYING it makes it clear the system works- but it only continues to work as long as you release the hostage on payment.
Otherwise people stop paying.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Tether says its reserves are backed by cash to the tune of . . . 2.9%
Rather far off from the 100% it used to claim isn’t it?! But still, we now have “unrivaled transparency” AKA pie charts!
www.ft.com
LiveLong&Profit
Member
Recent Elon tweets:
Doge requirements
Doge or new coin?
Clarifying performance vs fees
My preliminary takeaway: As always, Elon is concerned about volume, efficiencies and low costs. I agree, but how to get there?
I don't understand crypto well enough, so here are some questions:
Doge requirements
Doge or new coin?
Clarifying performance vs fees
My preliminary takeaway: As always, Elon is concerned about volume, efficiencies and low costs. I agree, but how to get there?
I don't understand crypto well enough, so here are some questions:
- If Doge is currently PoW would it take a hard fork to get to PoS?
- If a hard fork is necessary, will there be Doge Classic and Doge New, like the Ether situation since the hard fork in 2016 to correct the DAO situation?
- How much of Bitcoins current problems re. mining and lack of speed is built into the design and how much is simply due to the popularity of Bitcoin. In other words, how to design first-principles for trillions of fast transactions: Is there a clear winning design or is this still an open research/practical problem?
- Is it likely, that what was basically a joke less than a year ago can become the leading crypto mechanism? I owe this to Dave Lee who in his latest video rhetorically ask that since Elon likes to push things to the limit and beyond, how likely is it that a handful of part-time doge devs can live up to Elons expectations?
- What are Doges plans re. smart contracts and NFTs? Both has increased vastly in popularity - Ethereum seems to be current leader, but other alt-coins like Cardano/ADA, Polkadot parachains, and others are planning to offer smart contract in 2021. Elons hasn't mentioned smart contracts yes AFIK, but it would seem to be necessary in the future.
