Quote from: rdnkjdi on April 07, 2014, 02:07:08 PM

[snip]

While he will pay more for it than he would have prior to this wildly popular CPU coin. He will still be paying less per coin to generate than the person purchasing a new computer or renting AWS will.

Why do you say AWS is cheaper than buying hardware? I don't think so. Amazon has to make a profit. It is cheaper only for the very short-term (or unspecialized execution instance hardware thus Amazon can employ Xeon chips with 12+ cores) when you haven't yet reaped enough return to pay back your hardware. On the long-term buying your Core i7 Haswell or later hardware direct is cheaper as far as I know. Also Intel is scheduled to release a Haswell-E enthusiast chip in late 2014 or early 2015 which has 8 cores (16 hyperthreads) bringing that cloud economy-of-scale hardware to the desktop. That is assuming you don't need more than a simple cable modem or DSL internet connection.

For as long as botnets are cheaper than new hardware, you and I can go buy a botnet instead of new hardware. What is the problem? We will drive the botnet price up until they cost same as equivalent hardware.

To facilitate this, we should make it super easy to deploy a botnet, such that any person can do it with a single click. Wink

It is a wise-ass quip like this that used to get me in trouble with some high school teachers or some other authorities (especially never embarrass a policeman, instead bend down and kiss their jackboots). They don't like it when we speak such heresies. I don't intend derogatory nor wise-ass malice, rather just matter-of-fact with shoulders shrugged.

Rant:

If we don't let people learn from their mistakes, then we wonder why the world is becoming dumber.

Remember moralists always accomplish the opposite of their stated empathy. They will argue we shouldn't encourage theft of computers, yet should we also put a policeman in front of every house that refuses to lock its front door? We would bankrupt society if we encourage people to be irresponsible. Socialists think they can protect people from everything, as if they are God. We can afford to be so self-important, because we are funded by $223 trillion in debt, $1000 trillion in derivatives, and $1000 trillion in unfunded social welfare promises. Ultimately the best is always to put the correct economic incentives in play, then let individuals make their choices. We aren't talking about murder here, rather putting idle computers to work (obviously idle otherwise the hijacked computer's user would surely realize their computer is not responding well). Even the animals are thriving at Chernobyl, meaning the earth renews itself.

Recent examples:

Quote from: AnonyMint on April 04, 2014, 05:30:32 AM

Quote from: chessnut on April 04, 2014, 05:10:51 AM

No doubt about it, if you are shorting the fundamentals, you are trapping vulnerable people. Shorters are deliberately making it costly for the unfairly regulated chinese to exit the market.

Are we supposed to hold the hand of the Chinese and remove all risk. Do you know what happens when you remove all risk? Then there is no valuation convergence on truth. And everyone starves to death. That experiment has been tried, it is called Communism.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/03/30/even-cuba-abandons-communism-when-will-we/

I seem to regularly piss off socialist lunatics as Gandhi did.

Quote from: Gandhi

When Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, there was a professor, whose last name was Peters, who felt animosity for Gandhi, and because Gandhi never lowered his head towards him, their arguments were very common.
One day, Mr. Peters was having lunch at the dining room of the University and Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to the professor. The professor, in his arrogance, said, Mr Gandhi: you do not understand a pig and a bird do not sit together to eat , to which Gandhi replies, You do not worry professor, Ill fly away , and he went and sat at another table.
Mr. Peters, green of rage, decides to take revenge on the next test, but Gandhi responds brilliantly to all questions. Then, Mr. Peters asked him the following question, Mr Gandhi, if you are walking down the street and find a package, and within it there is a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money; which one will you take?
Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, the one with the money, of course.
Mr. Peters, smiling, said, I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom,
dont you think?
Each one take what one doesnt have, responded Gandhi indifferently.
Mr. Peters, already hysteric, writes on the exam sheet the word idiot and gives it to Gandhi. Gandhi takes the exam sheet and sits down. A few minutes later, Gandhi goes to the professor and says, Mr. Peters, you signed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade.

Quote from: AnonyMint on April 05, 2014, 12:16:55 PM

Quote from: Rogozhin on April 05, 2014, 07:32:53 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on April 04, 2014, 03:05:57 AM

Quote from: creekbore on April 04, 2014, 02:58:52 AM

But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties).

All this moral crap really annoys me. Shorting helps to prevent selloffs from being so severe, because shorts cover on the way down and provide buying demand.

Moralists always cause the opposite of what they portend to.

Successful trades buy low and sell high. They dampen market fluctuation, increase stability, and are in my view the most moral of all.

You do realize don't you that is no refutation of what I wrote.

The operative phrase is "buy low". That means don't catch a falling knife.