FTX Files For Bankruptcy. What will be the effect of this?

[Swordsmyth]

FTX Contagion Begins To Spread

https://www.thefinancialtrends.com/2...ins-to-spread/

[Occam's Banana]

LOL

Hard-hitting journalism at its finest.

He has also found other ways to occupy his time in recent days, playing the video game Storybook Brawl, though less than he usually does, he said. “It helps me unwind a bit,” he said. “It clears my mind.”

https://twitter.com/0xSisyphus/statu...29743671906304

[osan]

So much for the security of crypto.

Some will rail about the inherent safety of digital currencies, to which I say hogwash. Even if true, look what people do: they take what may one day prove secure^† and place management functions into the hands of unverified third parties, normally called "exchanges", and then wonder when their fortunes, such as they may be, fall under threat or simply go <POOF>. This is what I have talked about since almost day one.

It's NOT money. It is currency. This is the first and foremost point, but that doesn't perforce invalidate, so moving on...

It is software. I spent my professional life in the biz, from R&D computing at Bell Labs to business analysis and more in the "real" world. I've pretty much seen it all in that arena, and software remains what it is. Were I to miraculously contrive a truly unbreakable cipher scheme in the next ten minutes, it would make no difference in terms of the security of systems and accounts if people give away, say, the decryption keys, the point here being that management is of importance at least equal to that of the core technology in question. If you don't use it right, it may become worthless to its purpose.

Were people content to use their BTC in a wholly self-contained fashion? No. Exchanges and other services have arisen and people took the bait because they are... <drumroll>... corrupted by FAIL, leading them to trust third parties whose worthiness can never be guaranteed, a priori, under any circumstance, no matter what software systems are in place to ensure security. There is always risk, small as it may be or seem to be in some cases.

Just as with anything else, such as our Constitution, the problem lies not with the instrumentality, but the human being in the mix. ANYTHING can be compromised so long as a human being can get their hands on it. Perfect failsafe nuclear triggers? Give the right human the right access and guess what...

Every time one human devises something clever to a purpose, another one finds a way to subvert it. This is the nature of things, and neither has the fundamental nature of humans, nor that of software, changed in any manner whatsoever. Until we see something truly essential evolve in the twiddling of bits, the human instrument will remain the weak link. Just look at our must recent elections. QED.

† To my knowledge, cryptocurrencies are yet to be proven NP-complete. Clearly, they are demonstrated NP-hard, at least in von Neumann systems. I don't know how they fare in quantum systems. I'm not up on q-bit computing at all and don't even know if they are functionally valid in the real world. The fact that q-bit companies exist and purport to offer quantum computing guarantees no truth there. I've read in places that an unbreakable" cipher will instantaneously yield its clear text with a q-bit CPU. I've not verified this, but if true, then cryptocurrencies' days are numbered... that is, unless encryption using one somehow and miraculously reinforces a given system's security, which I would find surprising.

[tebowlives]

FTX co-CEO Salame favors the red side of the political divide, donating $23.6 million to Republican campaigns for the current cycle.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/sbf-has-been-a-significant-donor-in-us-midterm-elections

[Madison320]

I have no opinion about crypto, one way or the other, or about what the problems with it may or may not be, but ...

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value", and the example you presented is, frankly, silly and irrelevant. The fact that one thing (e.g., a house) is considered by anyone to be of more value than some other different kind of thing (e.g., a picture of a house) does not in any way demonstrate that value is somehow "intrinsic" to either thing. All it demonstrates is that different things are valued differently. And for that matter, even exactly the same thing may be valued differently. Having decided to sell your house, you may value it at a given price, and Smith may regard that price as a bargain, while simultaneously, Jones may regard it as overpriced. But if value is "intrinsic", then the value of your house ought to be exactly the same for you, Smith, and Jones (and everyone else, too) - because that is what the concept of value being "intrinsic" necessarily means.

All value is subjective, and therefore extrinsic. This is not a matter of science ("exact" or otherwise). It is a matter of what the concept of "value" means (namely, it denotes a relation between the object that is valued and the subject that values it). Statements such as "eventually [a thing's] price will match its intrinsic value" is exactly the same kind of nonsense Marx tried to peddle with respect to the price of labor and what he was pleased to call "surplus" value. In fact, Marx's gobbledygook concerning "surplus" value even makes somewhat more sense than the notion of "intrinsic" value does, since, unlike "intrinsic" value, "surplus" value can at least be clearly defined and even calculated (it is the price the capitalist receives for a widget less the price he pays for the labor to make that widget).

So if there's no such thing as intrinsic value why is a house almost universally worth far more than a picture of a house?

[Brian4Liberty]

So if there's no such thing as intrinsic value why is a house almost universally worth far more than a picture of a house?

Do you think unbacked crypto has any uses? Store of value? Money?

Hmmm. Is “intrinsic” a synonym to “utilitarian”? Seems like there are basic things that are mandatory for life, which people universally “value”, but the price can vary dramatically. Do you eat lentil soup, or do you eat aged Wagyu ribeye? Do you live in a cardboard box, or a penthouse on Central Park?

[Brian4Liberty]

Fractional reserve banking works so well, why not fractional reserve crypto and a fractional reserve stock market?

[Madison320]

Hmmm. Is “intrinsic” a synonym to “utilitarian”? Seems like there are basic things that are mandatory for life, which people universally “value”, but the price can vary dramatically. Do you eat lentil soup, or do you eat aged Wagyu ribeye? Do you live in a cardboard box, or a penthouse on Central Park?

Yeah, intrinsic value, utilitarian value, it's all the same thing. How much will it add to your life? If it's 20 below a house is pretty damn useful. A lot more than a picture of one. And yeah, it's not an exact science. It's not like you look at a house and can calculate that its intrinsic value is $230,014.76. Some people value some things more than others but overall, on average, there's a rough estimate on the intrinsic value of things.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't know how [cryptocurrencies] fare in quantum systems. I'm not up on q-bit computing at all and don't even know if they are functionally valid in the real world. The fact that q-bit companies exist and purport to offer quantum computing guarantees no truth there.

The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst
How much of what you hear about quantum computing is real promise and how much of it is hype? What is the "quantum winter" that so many physicists have been warning of? In this video I sort it out for you.

00:00 : Intro
00:37 : Quantum Hype
04:58 : How Does a Quantum Computer Work?
07:20 : Problems With Quantum Computers
12:57 : Quantum Winter
17:40 : What Does It Mean?
18:20 : Check out my Quantum Mechanics Course on Brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLVtCYHVO8

[Occam's Banana]

So if there's no such thing as intrinsic value why is a house almost universally worth far more than a picture of a house?

Because houses tend to be valued more highly than pictures of houses.

But that doesn't make the value of houses "intrinsic".

Pictures of houses tend to be more highly valued than handfuls of pocket lint - but that does not make pictures of houses "intrinsically" valuable, either.

Yeah, intrinsic value, utilitarian value, it's all the same thing. How much will it add to your life? If it's 20 below a house is pretty damn useful. A lot more than a picture of one. And yeah, it's not an exact science. It's not like you look at a house and can calculate that its intrinsic value is $230,014.76. Some people value some things more than others but overall, on average, there's a rough estimate on the intrinsic value of things.

I have struck out the word "intrinsic" in what you said here. Notice that this did not change the meaning of anything you said. That is because what you are calling "intrinsic value" is really just "value". Inserting the word "intrinsic" does not add any meaning. It's entirely pointless and superfluous.

What people (erroneously) call "intrinsic value" is actually just plain old subjective "value" - nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

If it's 20 below a house is pretty damn useful.

This is a perfect example of why value is not and cannot be intrinsic.

An intrinsic quality of a thing is an essential quality which is inherent in the thing in itself, and which is not dependent on or relative to anything outside of itself. That is what "intrinsic" means. Thus, if the value of a house is intrinsic, then factors outside of the house itself (such as temperatures) cannot have anything at all to do with the value of the house. But as evidenced when you correctly said "if it's 20 below a house is pretty damn [valuable]", the value of a house DOES have something to do with factors outside of the house itself (such as temperature). Thus, the value of a house is NOT "intrinsic".

Another illustration of the fact that value is always extrinsic and never intrinsic is that value is subjective, not objective. For example (and taking a cue from B4L's post #66), a ramshackle "shotgun shack" might be quite valuable to someone living in a refrigerator carton, but of little value to someone living in a Central Park West penthouse apartment. If the value of houses is intrinsic to them, then the value of the shack ought to be the same for both the carton-dweller and the penthouse-dweller (and for everyone else, too). But it isn't, because the shack's value is not intrinsic to it, and is instead contingent upon extrinsic factors. The same is true for the value of all things, and for the same reasons.

The whole idea of "intrinsic value" is a fossil - an artifact left over from outdated economics. For example, classical economists (such as Adam Smith) believed that the intrinsic value of a thing, as expressed by its price, was the sum of the costs of the inputs necessary to produce the thing. Socialist economists (most notably Marx) believed that the intrinsic value of a thing was the cost of the labor necessary to produce the thing. But such notions of "intrinsic value" were invalidated with the discovery (by Carl Menger, et al.) of marginal utility and subjective value theory. Unfortunately, though, the idea still clings to informal discussions of economics like a long-dead barnacle.

[Madison320]

Because houses tend to be valued more highly than pictures of houses.

But that doesn't make the value of houses "intrinsic".

Ok, I'll use value instead of intrinsic value.

So why are houses valued more than pictures of houses?

[acptulsa]

Ok, I'll use value instead of intrinsic value.

So why are houses valued more than pictures of houses?

At this point, what difference does it make? Either the word "intrinsic" adds value to a sentence or it doesn't. Arguing about the example, meanwhile, adds no value to the discussion.

[Occam's Banana]

Ok, I'll use value instead of intrinsic value.

So why are houses valued more than pictures of houses?

For the same reasons diamonds tend to be more highly valued than water.

[osan]

The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst
How much of what you hear about quantum computing is real promise and how much of it is hype?

That's the $64 question. I'm no longer sufficiently interested in computing to bother. I have other, more important things with which to occupy my time.

I don't do hype, and everything I've read on QC suggests hype.

As for the video, Sabine is an odd favorite of mine. Her dry, Terutonic humor is a riot. Her one terrible flaw is her apparent subscription to the "climate change" bull$#@!, which I find endlessly surprising, given what she does for a living, which is supposed to be science.

[Madison320]

At this point, what difference does it make? Either the word "intrinsic" adds value to a sentence or it doesn't. Arguing about the example, meanwhile, adds no value to the discussion.

That's my point. Intrinsic value, utilitarian value, plain old value. It's all the same. So if Occam says there's no such thing as value why are houses valued more than pictures of houses? Just random? The fact that a house keeps you warm, dry and safe has nothing to do with it?

[Madison320]

For the same reasons diamonds tend to be more highly valued than water.

Ok what if I changed my original statement to this:

"Marginal utility" exists and bitcoin has no "marginal utility".

Would you then agree?

[acptulsa]

That's my point. Intrinsic value, utilitarian value, plain old value. It's all the same. So if Occam says there's no such thing as value why are houses valued more than pictures of houses? Just random? The fact that a house keeps you warm, dry and safe has nothing to do with it?

Is that what he said? Gee, I didn't think he erased two words right out of the dictionary. He doesn't seem to think the adjective intrinsic has no place in the lexicon. And he's certainly not denying that people value things here...

All it demonstrates is that different things are valued differently.

"...things are valued..." Nope, that's no denial that value exists. So what are you talking about?

"Marginal utility" exists and bitcoin has no "marginal utility".

Oh, is that what you're on about? Why didn't you say so? Well, let's see. Yes, electrons have quite a lot of marginal utility--though perhaps not so much because people can randomly assign value to certain groupings of them.

[Occam's Banana]

That's my point. Intrinsic value, utilitarian value, plain old value. It's all the same. So if Occam says there's no such thing as value why are houses valued more than pictures of houses? Just random? The fact that a house keeps you warm, dry and safe has nothing to do with it?

Where the hell did I say "there's no such thing as value"?!?!

I also never said "Intrinsic value, utilitarian value, [and] plain old value [are] all the same".

What I said was "What people (erroneously) call 'intrinsic value' is actually just plain old subjective 'value'".

It is erroneous to speak of "intrinsic value" because there is no such thing. There is only subjective value.

Ok what if I changed my original statement to this:

"Marginal utility" exists and bitcoin has no "marginal utility".

Would you then agree?

As for "'marginal utility' exists" - yes, I agree.

As for "bitcoin has no 'marginal utility'" - there is no objective answer.

Even if Bitcoin has no marginal utility to you, it may still have marginal utility to others.

That is because, like value, marginal utility is subjective, not intrinsic.

[Madison320]

Where the hell did I say "there's no such thing as value"?!?!

I also never said "Intrinsic value, utilitarian value, [and] plain old value [are] all the same".

What I said was "What people (erroneously) call 'intrinsic value' is actually just plain old subjective 'value'".

It is erroneous to speak of "intrinsic value" because there is no such thing. There is only subjective value.



As for "'marginal utility' exists" - yes, I agree.

As for "bitcoin has no 'marginal utility'" - there is no objective answer.

Even if Bitcoin has no marginal utility to you, it may still have marginal utility to others.

That is because, like value, marginal utility is subjective, not intrinsic.

Ok so why does a house almost always have more marginal utility than a picture of a house if it's completely subjective?

My point is that marginal utility is NOT completely subjective, there are some objective elements to it. Can it provide shelter? Food? Improve your health?

Bitcoin has none of that. It's a digital token.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RonPaulInstitut/...94959243870208

[Brian4Liberty]

The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst
How much of what you hear about quantum computing is real promise and how much of it is hype? What is the "quantum winter" that so many physicists have been warning of? In this video I sort it out for you.
...

[/I]That's the $64 question. I'm no longer sufficiently interested in computing to bother. I have other, more important things with which to occupy my time.

I don't do hype, and everything I've read on QC suggests hype.

As for the video, Sabine is an odd favorite of mine. Her dry, Terutonic humor is a riot. Her one terrible flaw is her apparent subscription to the "climate change" bull$#@!, which I find endlessly surprising, given what she does for a living, which is supposed to be science.

Who remembers bubble memory?

[Occam's Banana]

Ok so why does a house almost always have more marginal utility than a picture of a house if it's completely subjective?

My point is that marginal utility is NOT completely subjective, there are some objective elements to it. Can it provide shelter? Food? Improve your health?

Bitcoin has none of that. It's a digital token.

[Madison320]

That's one way to admit you're wrong.

I accept.

[susano]

I've not read this thread but ran across the following:

Dr. Interracial 🇺🇸
@Sandyleevincent
·
Nov 14
.
@LeaderMcConnell
got some of that tax payer FXT Ukraine money.
Now you know why the uni-party
@GOP

@DNC
didn’t want a audit of Ukraine money & had to get rid of Trump.
https://twitter.com/sandyleevincent/...11614853652481 (document at link)


And...

Horses Against Cenk
@HorsesVSCenk
Replying to
@Sandyleevincent

@LeaderMcConnell
and 2 others
FTX funded the failed Ivermectin study also
https://twitter.com/HorsesVSCenk/sta...59735906320385

I'm assuming the above study found Ivermectin to be of no value (dunno).

[susano]

lol dogs

[osan]

Who remembers bubble memory?

I sure do. IBM invention and it was a neat idea, but crap in practice because it is sequential access, rather than directly addressable. That would not be a problem if the bubbles moved withi sufficient speed, but they cannot. And so, bubbles went the way of the dodo.

Computing is fascinating science, but once I did my masters I had that "been there, done that" feeling about it. It was a largely boring living in spite of the money.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RonPaulInstitut/...94959243870208

Coincidence, planned, or a case of not letting a massive crime go to waste?

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...73241130102784

[osan]

Yeah, intrinsic value, utilitarian value, it's all the same thing.

No sir. As BananaBoy pointed out, there is no such thing as intrinsic value when taken in a vacuum. But the moment a context is given, which itself provides the frame of reference against which judgement/assessment can be made, the notion takes on real and practical meaning.

One might be tempted, for example, to say that oxygen has intrinsic value, but that would be an error, once again when taken in vacuo. But when the context of human life is provided as the reference frame, then the intrinsic value of oxygen is readily discernible in the context of human life, along with the usual set of assumptions we tend to make about it, such as not being suicidal.

Some people value some things more than others but overall, on average, there's a rough estimate on the intrinsic value of things.

That would be a statistical figure, more or less.

I've seen houses that have zero value to me because I'd not live in them if you gave them to me, all else equal. Change the context and I many change my opinion.

Context is king.

[Brian4Liberty]

I sure do. IBM invention and it was a neat idea, but crap in practice because it is sequential access, rather than directly addressable. That would not be a problem if the bubbles moved withi sufficient speed, but they cannot. And so, bubbles went the way of the dodo.

Computing is fascinating science, but once I did my masters I had that "been there, done that" feeling about it. It was a largely boring living in spite of the money.

IIRC, they envisioned thumb drives, flash drives and memory sticks made with bubble memory. It happened eventually, but without bubble memory.

[osan]

IIRC, they envisioned thumb drives, flash drives and memory sticks made with bubble memory. It happened eventually, but without bubble memory.

What has fascinated me the most about all this is that the more "advanced" we become, the more miserable we seem to be.