Eli dourado cryptocurrencies
He notes that financial assets face in equilibrium a tradeoff between expected return and volatility. In order for markets to be induced to hold a volatile asset, long-term expected returns must be higher. This means that over long time horizons, a relatively volatile asset such as Bitcoin may be a better store of value than assets deliberately designed to be non-volatile such as fiat currency.
Of course, volatility means that an asset is a poor store of value in the short run. JP Koning imagines a world in which neither merchants nor consumers want to be exposed to Bitcoin volatility, and so they rely on payment intermediaries that convert dollars to Bitcoin and back again.
If this is the case, he argues, there is no point in using Bitcoin. Noah agrees with JP that this is significant. But I think their analysis is incomplete. Monetary economics is highly contextual, and there are a lot of context-specific factors that continue to make Bitcoin a compelling monetary idea, particularly as a medium of settlement.
Bitcoin volatility is way down over the past several years. Why is this the case? To me it seems clear that the Bitcoin ecosystem is growing over time. There are more and better Bitcoin exchanges, wallets, and processors than there were in, say, The Bitcoin derivatives market is still nascent, but it is more liquid than at any time in the past. As this financial infrastructure builds out, it is natural that Bitcoin would become less volatile.
My Bitcoin volatility index currently places the standard deviation of daily dollar-denominated Bitcoin returns at 1. This is about 2x the volatility of the exchange rate between two well-managed fiat currencies. Now, nothing suggests that this period of relatively low volatility is permanent.
There was a big spike in volatility back in January. It could happen again. Or Zimbabwe. Or even Greece. Or, really, in expectation, most of the people on the planet. But in most of the world, money is an irresistable political tool. Central banking conspiracy theories that are jokes in the United States are reality elsewhere. And even in countries where central banks are starting to develop a track record of stability, institutions are frequently not as sturdy as we might like.
One day their citizens will wake up to a sudden, unexpected revaluation. With Bitcoin, there is of course the risk that the whole project will fail, but there is no need for the kind of institutional willpower that seems to be necessary for central banks to succeed in the long run. As a result, I think Bitcoin or a future cryptocurrency has the potential to be the short-run store of value of choice in large swaths of the planet.
When I buy goods from Amazon with a credit card, I pay Amazon, but final settlement does not occur right away. The credit card company will reverse the payment if I complain to them that there was some kind of fraud or error in the transaction. You can perhaps copy the institutional structure, and you can copy the outcomes and decisions, but when a crisis occurs, you want the A team to handle it as calmly, reasonably, and professionally as possible. Source code and technical parameters can be copied.
Adoption and network effects can be replicated over time. Ethereum vs. Bitcoin: Where do we stand? Does Ethereum dominate Bitcoin? Not yet, but it seems likely to me that it soon will, at least in most important respects. Market cap Bitcoin still leads in market cap, which I take to be a good indicator of adoption and network effects, by a factor of more than two. Number of on-chain transactions Ethereum currently processes more than 3x the number of on-chain transactions than Bitcoin does.
This metric might be considered a proxy for the amount of real-world use. Trading volume Bitcoin still has about 3x the daily on-exchange fiat-currency trading volume that ether does. It seems fair to say that Bitcoin is still more liquid with respect to fiat currency than ether is. Mining rewards over a hour period are about equal between Ethereum and Bitcoin, indicating that at least with respect to the core function hashing of the networks, both are for now about equally secure.
Number of full nodes The number of full nodes is sometimes viewed as a measure of decentralization of the network. The reason some Bitcoin developers are averse to a block size increase is they fear it will increase the resources required to run a full node, resulting in fewer full nodes and more centralization. Currently, Ethereum has more than twice the number of full nodes as Bitcoin does, even with bigger block payloads per unit time.
Transaction fees Other things equal e. Ethereum has dramatically lower transaction fees than Bitcoin does, despite processing more transactions and having an equal overall mining reward which leads to overall security. Even so, in my opinion Ethereum needs to do the work to ensure on-chain scaling continues so that transaction fees remain low.
Block frequency Bitcoin processes blocks according to a Poisson process with a mean frequency of 10 minutes. This means you can have some certainty that your transaction will clear much sooner with Ethereum than you can with Bitcoin. Robustness of scripting language Ethereum features a Turing-complete instruction set with several normal-ish, expressive programming languages, while Bitcoin has only limited, gobbledygook op codes.
This means that Bitcoin can only represent a ledger or some very basic conditional payments, while Ethereum can represent an entire computer state. I say this is a clear advantage for Ethereum, while some critics try to twist it into a point for Bitcoin. I will address the critics in the next section. Meanwhile, the Ethereum community is practical and congenial. Sometimes Vitalik is absurdly criticized as a dictator, but this accusation has no basis in reality.
He seems to intuitively understand the need to build a broad consensus within the community, and this consensus in fact exists. Final score Bitcoin continues to have a clear lead in market cap network effects and trading volume liquidity , and it is tied with Ethereum in block rewards chain security.
Ethereum leads in every other dimension: number of transactions, number of full nodes, lower transaction fees, block frequency, scripting capability, and governance quality. In other words, if ether doubled in price and bitcoin halved in price, Ethereum could pull permanently ahead of Bitcoin on every or almost every dimension that matters.
This seems not only plausible to me, but likely. Many of the criticisms of Ethereum are overstated or even unhinged Bitcoin absolutists often spout criticisms of Ethereum that I will partially address below. The criticisms vary in terms of plausibility, and they are all repeated with tribalist fervor.
This means that you can write complex smart contracts on Ethereum, and you generally cannot on Bitcoin. Bitcoin does whitelist some basic smart contracts as op codes, but it will probably never have as robust capabilities as Ethereum. The other side of this coin is a concern raised about security.
The first is related to setting the gas cost of operations on the Ethereum network. If some operations are underpriced in terms of gas relative to their computational cost, then it becomes possible to flood the network with underpriced but computationally costly operations. This brings legitimate activity to a halt, a denial-of-service attack. These kinds of attacks occurred several times in , resulting in a repricing of certain operations. Presumably, as underlying computing technology changes, operations will need to be repriced again in the future.
But this kind of attack only denies access to the network until gas values are recalibrated; no coins are at risk. Once recalibration is done, the issue basically goes away. The other way in which Ethereum has a larger attack surface relates to individual smart contracts.
With a more robust programming language, there are more ways to screw up. Bugs in complex code lead to debacles like the DAO fiasco. Bitcoin does not allow the kinds of complex smart contracts that are likely to have some of these bugs. If your goal is only to do the kinds of transfers on Ethereum that are allowed on Bitcoin, there is no reason to believe that the attack surface is any bigger. The code to transfer value on Ethereum is even simpler than it is on Bitcoin.
It is true that irrational exuberance about smart contracts on Ethereum has led to some projects launching poorly reviewed code that was ultimately insecure. But for the kinds of applications you might use Bitcoin for, Ethereum appears to be as secure as Bitcoin is.
What about the DAO fork? In general, my prior is to oppose bailouts, and there is no denying that the hard fork that followed the DAO debacle was a bailout. Ethereum has proceeded quite successfully since July I would say that it is a plausible view, by no means certain.
What is an implausible view is the continual carping about bailouts on Ethereum, the implication being that the Ethereum community will hard fork to bail out everyone else who is careless with their smart contracts. Even if you think the DAO hard fork was misguided or wrong, there are numerous differentiating factors that make it separable from current activity. First, at the time of the DAO attack, Ethereum was still a young, immature system, less than a year old. Second, the DAO held approximately 15 percent of all ether that had been issued up to that point.
Nobody wants an attacker to hold 15 percent of all tokens on any chain. Finally, in recent coin loss events like the Parity multisig bug , virtually nobody proposed hard forking Ethereum. Ethereum was largely spearheaded by Vitalik Buterin , a Russian-Canadian twenty-something who is still around and actively contributing to the project. Vitalik exercises an intellectual leadership role within the community, which in my opinion he completely deserves on the basis of his contributions, temperament, and demonstrated strong judgment.
This is bananas. Vitalik is influential because he has a strong track record. As far as I can tell, technical dissent is extremely well tolerated among the Ethereum development community. And although Vitalik supported the DAO hard fork, to my knowledge he has not so much as said one negative word about those who chose to avoid the fork and continue with Ethereum Classic. Meanwhile, Bitcoin core development is extremely ideologically centralized and cynically, one might add centralized around the financial interests of Blockstream.
There are purges of technical dissenters. In contrast, Ethereum development has an extremely tolerant culture with plenty of room for back-and-forth and compromise. Hard forks are unsafe It has been an article of faith among some in the Bitcoin community that hard forks—introducing backwards-incompatible changes—are dangerous. Yet, somehow, Ethereum has hard forked on several occasions—mostly to add features—and everything has worked out just fine. How can this be?
Hard forks surely can be unsafe. If they are executed without adequate preparation, testing, notice, or consensus, they can result in chain forks or other debacles. But hard forks are also a necessary tool for adding features to existing blockchains. Inevitably, these upgrades will be provided through hard forks.
The belief that all new functionality will come through Layer 2 services or through soft forks is wrong. Knocking Ethereum for embracing and successfully executing hard forks is wrong-headed and counterproductive.
KAD RAYA 2022 PERCUMA FOREX
In contrast to the fiat money we use today, cryptocurrencies have a limited supply and compared to gold, cryptocurrencies are much more portable, are easier to divide into small parts, and cannot be counterfeit. At first glance, this may seem insignificant, but money affects everything and even small improvements can have a massive effect.
Irreversible digital transactions You receive money in under an hour , and after that the money is yours. In contrast, it may take days to receive other digital payments that can also be reversed weeks or months later. This is known as charge back fraud or friendly fraud and is a big problem for merchants. For anyone and anything Cryptocurrencies can be used by anyone. Nobody can prevent you from sending or receiving cryptocurrencies.
Financial privacy Banks, credit card companies, and payment processors have all your financial transactions on record. Cryptocurrencies allow you to reclaim some of your privacy as they work like a swiss bank account in your pocket. Table of Contents For most of history, humans have used commodity currency. Fiat currency is a more recent development, first used around years ago, and today it is the dominant form of money. But this may not be the end of monetary history. Cryptocurrency is neither commodity money nor fiat money — it is a new, experimental kind of money.
The cryptocurrency experiment may or may not ultimately succeed, but it offers a new mix of technical and monetary characteristics that raise different economic questions than other kinds of currency.
Eli dourado cryptocurrencies cryptocurrency mining benchmark
Ellie Goulding - Love Me Like You Do (Vevo Presents: Live in London)QUECHUA EASY SYSTEM FOREX
Cryptocurrency is neither commodity money nor fiat money — it is a new, experimental kind of money. The cryptocurrency experiment may or may not ultimately succeed, but it offers a new mix of technical and monetary characteristics that raise different economic questions than other kinds of currency.
This article explains what cryptocurrency is and begins to answer the new questions that it raises. To understand why cryptocurrency has the characteristics it has, it is important to understand the problem that is being solved. For this reason, we start with the problems that have plagued digital cash in the past and the technical advance that makes cryptocurrency possible. Our institutions would experience a slow decline. We must continue to invest in space if we want to flourish as a society and as a species.
Improving daily life on Earth Space already has a surprising impact on modern life. This is particularly true for satellites. Global satellite communication systems are used by the broadcast industry, but also for critical safety-of-life functions aboard planes and ships, which sometimes travel out of range of other communication methods.
Workers on board oil platforms use satellites to connect to civilization. Consider the value that satellite positioning adds. If you are on board a plane traveling through storm clouds or if you have cargo on a ship crossing the Pacific, the Global Positioning System GPS keeps you and your goods on track and safe. Forget about the entire business model of Uber and Lyft. Say goodbye to in-dash navigation.
An underrated way that satellites improve our lives is through accurate weather forecasting. Beyond satellites, space technology has contributed to our quality of life on Earth in countless ways. To highlight just one area where NASA research has generated new possibilities and commercial opportunities on Earth, consider vertical farms, which are now delivering fresh produce to grocery stores all over the country while economizing on soil, land, pesticides, and water.
Being able to grow food in orbit is essential if we want to support large populations living there, but we will have to do it with limited space, water, and supporting mass. To meet this challenge, NASA funded research to mature next-generation aeroponic growing techniques. Beginning in , the agency even successfully tested these growing systems onboard the International Space Station.
The commercial space industry is also on the cusp of providing new benefits to human beings on Earth. Gravity is one of the four known fundamental forces. The ability to operate in orbital microgravity is like having an off switch for one of the laws of physics. This capability is so fundamental that it would be shocking if it had no applications. It turns out that some articles—certain pharmaceuticals, carbon nanotubes, and silicon wafers used in semiconductor manufacturing—can only be manufactured or can be manufactured with better tolerances in zero gravity.
Afford, G. Mason, and D. Varda is a startup that is offering zero-gravity manufacturing as a service. ZBLAN is a fancy fluoride glass with a theoretical attenuation 20 times lower than the silica fiber optic cables we use today. ZBLAN fibers would require fewer repeaters, cutting the cost of undersea cables, which connect our portion of the Internet to Europe and Asia, by tens of millions of dollars.
Fibers manufactured in zero gravity feature much less crystallization and therefore less attenuation. These better fiber optics will improve long-distance connectivity and lower the cost of our information infrastructure. Protecting and preserving democracy Space investments enable democratic countries to continue to defend themselves against space-capable authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. The military importance of occupying the high ground has been understood for millennia, and space is the ultimate high ground.
From space, we can survey every battlefield and peer behind enemy lines. Satellite imagery from both commercial and government programs is being used extensively in Ukraine to track Russian movements. To penetrate the clouds, some of these satellites use synthetic aperture an imaging technique that uses microwaves instead of visible light. Unlike normal photographs, it works at night and in overcast skies. Surveillance satellites are far from a static endeavor. Recent spy satellites operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office operate in eccentric orbits that enable them to briefly get close to their targets—for example, the satellite known as USA orbits with an apogee of 1, km and a perigee of km.
In other words, it swoops in close to the Earth to get a high-resolution photo. By spying on our satellites, the Russians can get a good sense of what we are looking at. Satellites that are part of SBIRS operate in both geosynchronous and highly-elliptical orbits, while other satellites in complementary systems operate in low-Earth orbit. These latter satellites are important for tracking the flight of any launched missiles, including the decoys released by modern Chinese and Russian missiles that make shooting them down harder.
We are still far from being able to protect the country from advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles, and maneuverable hypersonic weapons could make this challenge even more severe. Yet any level of missile defense is predicated on space-based missile tracking, so if we want to increase our capabilities, we need to continue to invest in space technology.
So far, no country has declared any space-based weapons, but they may yet be coming. The idea is to deorbit a large tungsten rod from space and steer it into a target, which it would strike with a speed of Mach 8— Unlike conventional weapons, these hypervelocity rods would be almost impossible to intercept, could be launched with minimal risk of detection, and would take only a few minutes to hit their target, assuming a sufficient number of rod-launching satellites in orbit.
Since it is clear that warfare of the future will be ever more reliant on space, the major powers have all invested in anti-satellite weapons. The US, China, Russia, and India have all demonstrated the ability to shoot down their own satellites.
If a serious war broke out between space-faring nations, a lot of satellites would quickly get disabled. This could lead to reduced reconnaissance capabilities, loss of positioning services, and shorter missile warning times. Access to low Earth orbit could be temporarily disabled. But if we used large constellations instead of single spacecraft to provide critical services, our capabilities would be more likely to survive first contact with the enemy. In addition, we must invest in more maneuverable, evasive satellites as well as satellites that are capable of operating in ultra-low Earth orbit between to km of altitude , where debris is swept away by drag in a matter of days and images have the sharpest resolution.
Enriching science Space investment is worthwhile for pure scientific knowledge, even in the absence of any immediate practical benefit. If you love science, if you believe in science, if you think science is in any way beneficial, you should embrace space investments.
We would not be as scientifically advanced as we are today if not for space. Newer, high-resolution imaging and Earth sensing satellites help us understand and control for effects like urban heat islands and land-use changes. For example, we know that when Earth first formed, it was too hot to sustain oceans. Isaac Newton speculated that they were made from the tails of comets.
Measurements from the NASA Dawn spacecraft tell us that as much as 30 percent of the mass of Ceres, the largest known asteroid, is water. The next time you are standing on a seashore gazing out over the water, consider that all you see may have originated in space.
comments: 1 на “Eli dourado cryptocurrencies”
buffett investing formulas in economic