/biz/ - Business & Finance

Sneed

ch-ch-ch-chia!

every watt used for failed altcoins like chia is a waste of energy

Go away with your destroyer of SSDs

sigh

>>51541118
>>51541134
>>51541181
>>51541211
>>51541215
How worried are you all about an alt that didn't do an ICO (so it won't get fucked by the SEC) and actually has some potential real-world use that isn't just making shitty jpegs and trading worthless tokens between wallets?

>>51541053
>Real world usage soon fellow farmers
No. Here is why. Exchanges of note don't want to go near Chia due to the amount of tokens they hold unlocked. It would be a massive dump fest. Also, Chia already has had use cases for while now, being the crypto of choice for Puerto Rico. News flash, it went absolutely no where. The devs who made chia just wanted to get rich quick, but they timed the release wrong and the market went down. (oopsy). They have been coping after coping after coping for for over fucking years now trying to explain to people that holding million of unlocked chia is a good thing, but they want to algorithmically make it to where they can't sell it. (wtf does that even mean?). Anyways, it was a not well thought out scam using HHDs to mine when proof of stake already existed. Its like they had a meeting one day and said, "lets not make it to the solution. Lets just go half way.) KEK

>>51541850
>(wtf does that even mean?)
Smart contracts as a part of a wallet that doesn't allow them to redeem the coins without a time buffer of 'x' and also having a rate-limit built in so funds can't be drained immediately. Pretty much the exact thing that avoids the stuff you say exchanges are afraid of. The real reason Chia's not listed is because the devs outright don't pay listing fees like most exchanges ask of all cryptos (because almost the entire space is a racket)
>Anyways, it was a not well thought out scam using HHDs to mine when proof of stake already existed.
But Proof of Stake isn't good. Among the usual reasons listed, the SEC coming for people's asses about ICOs seems like that could be an issue. US-based exchanges won't be allowed to trade unregistered securities coins if the SEC deems so, and with PoS the only way you're usually getting that initial distribution of coins is through an ICO

>>51542072
>Smart contracts as a part of a wallet that doesn't allow them to redeem the coins without a time buffer of 'x' and also having a rate-limit built in
All they do is talk about doing this. They actually have zero plans to do this though, by the way. Why would a token dev stifle their own ability to make whatever money they need to pay themselves, employees, etc at the time they need to in order to continue development? It aint gonna happen.

>Pretty much the exact thing that avoids the stuff you say exchanges are afraid of.
It doesn't though, because the devs can just turn it off or on for whichever wallets they choose including theirs.

>The real reason Chia's not listed is because the devs outright don't pay listing fees like most exchanges ask of all cryptos (because almost the entire space is a racket)
False. The amount of money they would make from being able to dump their own tokens whenever they want to, discredits any "fees" issue. Wtf even is this argument? The literal token has a transaction fee. The increased token traffic benefits them tremendously. Not to mention large investor support, whales, outside dev development, etc. Getting your token on the most popular exchanges is probably the single most crucial thing you can do for your token. Access is king.

>But Proof of Stake isn't good.
Yet Eth went proof of stake. Must be terrible for them.

>SEC coming for people's asses about ICOs seems like that could be an issue.
So how are people conducting ICOs perfectly fine and without SEC involvement? New flash, XRP will win their case against the SEC, because the courts have already determined that XRP isn't a security and the SEC will either settle or drop the case before it goes to summary judgement. If the SEC loses, that means all crypto currencies are not securities forever due to precedence.

>>51541053
they refuse to play the crypto hype game, not getting added to the top exchanges, nobody uses it, don't think this will moon. I used to say I would buy a bag once it hit $20 but meh, scratch that. I doubt this has any chance of reaching previous ATH.

>>51541850
>No. Here is why. Exchanges of note don't want to go near Chia due to the amount of tokens they hold unlocked.
doubt that is why, they just refuse to give the exchanges their cut.

>. Anyways, it was a not well thought out scam using HHDs to mine when proof of stake already existed.
the idea itself was okay, use extra available harddrive space... but since they can't stop fags from buying a bunch of harddrives and overdoing it then it became pointless for regular people to be interested in it since they'd never win a block or whatever.

>>51542355
>doubt that is why, they just refuse to give the exchanges their cut.
Again, whatever exchange cut you think they aren't giving them, they would make 1000 times more in return simply due to accessibility.

If you're a produce farmer, you would put your produce in the most busy and most popular products markets.

>the idea itself was okay, use extra available harddrive space... but since they can't stop fags from buying a bunch of harddrives and overdoing it then it became pointless for regular people to be interested in it since they'd never win a block or whatever.
Exactly my point. They thought they were clever, but alienated their own token. They fucked up. Not to mention the forks that came about like green doge which uses chia plots already made to farm, etc. They wanted to make Bitcoin 2.0, but fumbled on the execution and planning. Proof of stake is going to be the only thing governments will allow, because of the climate change narrative.

>>51541755
who cares. it's failed.
token distribution alone would kill it, but it had that plus a broken proof model, plus being late to the game its trying to play.

>>51542433
>Again, whatever exchange cut you think they aren't giving them, they would make 1000 times more in return simply due to accessibility.
Unless your angle is to show you're the most 'legitimate' blockchain in the space and are trying to sell to enterprises and governments that normally side-eye cryptoshit. Then not playing the space's game is a long-term play at future profits (and hopefully legislation that works in your favor)

>>51542446
>but it had that plus a broken proof model
What about PoST is broken exactly? Nothing has gone wrong with it so far

>>51542748
>Unless your angle is to show you're the most 'legitimate' blockchain
Trust me kid, this aint it. This is just retarded cope for Chia failing hard.

>>51541053
ETH boys running scared in this thread

>>51541053
Where even is a Chia wallet?
Also it's impressive that they managed to walk into the proof of capacity market, have some disgusting premine to the point where it's more token than coin, and still manage to be a worse loss than fucking Signa, burstcoin's current name, which has like a dev team of five dudes or something.

>>51541053
Chia farming is so comfy, I just cant explain it bros.

>>51542748
its both not green and not easily decentralizable over proof of work
it's really got no benefit other than being "different" which might work if it was a hedge against bitcoin, but alts are likely to never be good hedges against bitcoin

>potential real-world use

lol just to be clear:
there is nothing on this blockchain, no apps, dapps, defi, nfts - anything. it's just a waste of space. but who shits out threads like this? who is incentivised that the price goes up? who?

THE MINERS.

>>51543553
> its both not green and not easily decentralizable over proof of work
explain why

>>51543543
no it's not. waiting forever to get a reward is not comfy.

>>51543578
because it burns through hardware and that hardware since long before bitcoin even existed has been manufactured by a very small cabal

its the worst of both worlds. there's never going to be any incentive to build an industry around chia like bitcoin mining did, and yet its still dependent on a tiny group of existing industry leaders.

>>51543668
> burns through hardware
false, SSDs only wear out if you plot hundreds of GBs and only low-grade consumer SSDs at that. can also be done entirely in RAM now with zero SSD wear
> specialized hardware
you have got to be kidding me. chia can be farmed profitably on a desktop PC
or Raspberry Pi. with Bitcoin you will never be profitable without free/cheap power and ASICs. also, in chia, farmers sign blocks, not pools. this is a HUGE distinction.

>>51543761
plotting hardware cost: 1.36k
equals 17 Plots

ESTIMATED EARNINGS: 0.0006 XCH / DAY

>yep checks out

>>51543888
Checked and yikes

>>51543888
> too stupid to realize that he can already farm chia with the desktop/laptop he is currently shitposting with

>>51544338
>too stupid to realize that not everyone has a desktop pc, has a 2tb "empty" nvme drive already installed, has at least 32gb ram just to earn 0.02 dollaronis a day

>>51541850
this guy probably owns LUNC or GME btw

>>51544394
pulling numbers out of the ass again. you don’t need 32 GB of RAM or a 2TB NVMe to farm chia. those things will be useful if you want to go big, but are absolutely not required for a small-scale user who just keeps his computer on anyway
you should go read up on how economies of scale work, and then come back to /biz/ afterward

>>51544458
"The suggested hardware below is for a beginner-friendly setup to start farming Chia." directly from chia

using lesser hardware will make your returns even smaller lol "going big" hahahahahaha by earning 0.01 bucks a day ey?

you fucking imbecile

>>51544499
Chia have never suggested you need 32GB RAM, 2TB nvme etc for farming chia lol.

creep

>>51543761
>quoting things that didn't exist

>>51544394
>2tb "empty" nvme drive
the fuck would you use that over spinning rust?

>>51543553
>and not easily decentralizable over proof of work
It's not explicitly a PoST thing, but the fact that Chia has a pooling protocol where individuals make the blocks instead of the pool already makes it a hell of a lot more decentralized overall than Bitcoin and pretty much any other chain. I've never bought the argument that people can just move to another pool of a pool fucks around because it just takes one moment of collusion between three entities for everything to get ruined for a chain

>>51541053
most useless actual L1 I have ever seen, lmao let's burn some SSDs for some proof of something.
Seriously proof of stake is more secure.

>>51544568
also, why would you farm Chia by ruining SSDs instead of providing storage and mining Filecoin? the first is clearly a retarded autistic tranny useless ghostscamchain, and the other is a clear pillar of web3 infrastructure.

>>51545850
>why would you farm Chia by ruining SSDs instead of providing storage and mining Filecoin?
Excellent point. I had forgotten about filecoin. oof.

Chia is literally a textbook VC pump&dump. This coin existed for years, somewhere in 2017 it was already going the rounds:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/chia-network-cryptocurrency/

Then, from 2017 to 2021 it kept getting VC funding to the tune of $70M on PAPER because those investment rounds are public. In practice, this is probably higher due to backroom deals. Current marketcap is $175M. That means OFFICIAL VC money is only at a small x2. Fully dilluted market cap is $900M. Meaning ON PAPER, VCs already have around $800M worth of coins they want to dump on retail.

DO NOT "INVEST" IN THIS SHIT
you are literally exit liquidity for venture capitalists

>>51545900
glad I could help anon. Now everyone stop wasting time and resources on Chia (== diarrhea in french) and mine Filecoin, especially while at all time low.

This shit still going? lmao
Biggest load of wank ever

happy i mined a block and sold my 2 XCH back in 2021. I will never buy again

>>51545802
>the fact that Chia has a pooling protocol where individuals make the blocks instead of the pool already makes it a hell of a lot more decentralized overall than Bitcoin and pretty much any other chain
this

>>51543570
sounds like something someone that's always late to the party would say
did you also buy bitcoin after it went to 60k?
you're looking at the potential here if you want to invest and make big gains

>>51541755
Pajeet scam.

Lmao at some of the responses in this thread
>It's not secure because I say it is even though PoST is effectively just frontloaded PoW
>It's not decentralized even though it's got the highest individual count of any blockchain and you can't have ASICs built for it
>Proof of Stake is good

>>51547143
Your double digit shitcoin will be single digit before end of year, only Pajeets shill this scam.

>>51547188
Can you come up with an actual critique of the chain?

>>51547228
You bought a coin called Chia, normans mock crypto as digital magic beans but you literally bought digital magic beans made by a Jew named Cohen who premined himself 99% of the supply. A joke of a blockchain with no adoption doesn't deserve serious critique, chia pet image spam is unironically all you losers deserve.

>>51547275
Thank you for your concession

>>51547275
>You bought a coin called Chia, normans mock crypto as digital magic beans but you literally bought digital magic beans made by a Jew named Cohen who premined himself 99% of the supply. A joke of a blockchain with no adoption doesn't deserve serious critique, chia pet image spam is unironically all you losers deserve.
holy shit you're a retard. Not a single ounce of intelligence.

>>51547275
>Cohen who premined himself 99%
this part is true and for me, not going near it.

>>51541755
>just burn your harddrive space bro

>>51546887
i bought btc at 3k.

i don't see potential in chia because there is none. no users, no dapps, no defi, nothing other than bagholders and miners.

>>51545300
it's the suggested "beginner" build. lol as if i would know what shit you should use with this trash

>>51545918
100% correct. i was actually stoked to see what would come of this back in the day and LOL i didn't get disappointed hahahaha

>>51541053
I've got a spare 80gb sata drive, will I become rich if I farm chia on it?
I think there's some 40gb ones too, somewhere

>>51550538
so you don't even know the basics but you keep commenting? hella cringe

>>51545850
“proof-of-useful-storage” coins actually can never be secure. can you figure out why?
>>51545918
>>51550556
this is a flat-out lie. no VC has ever received XCH in exchange for an investment. that would make XCH an unlicensed security like ETH and XRP, and chia has gone to great lengths to make sure that isn’t so. please read the business whitepaper before making things up.
>>51545820
every day, proof-of-stake gets exposed more and more as the complete sham that it is. hope you didn’t lock your ETH in a staking contract. ETH will probably be in the double digits by the time Vitalik decides to let you unstake it
>>51549142
in around 2 years, chia’s pre-farm will be a smaller percentage of its overall issuance than ETH’s is today
>>51547275
> schizo ad hominem ranting
the amount of seethe that chia induces amongst vested interests should be reason alone to check it out

>>51542267
>If the SEC loses, that means all crypto currencies are not securities forever due to precedence.

fuckin A, man

>>51541053
Why should this be used in the real world?
When its transactions per second is at bitcoin levels (less than 50 tps).
How can it compete? How can it scale? I kind of like how anyone can mine it, but it's too damn slow.

>>51553161
>Why should this be used in the real world?
It's decentralized and easy to be seen as compliant with major government standards which should help big businesses feel comfortable using it. Enterprise is pretty clearly who they're aiming for for adoption
>How can it scale?
Layer 2. You don't want to sacrifice decentralization with your blockchain because that's the only reason to use one in the first place, and you don't get huge Layer 1 speeds without sacrificing that

>>51551213
learn to read spastic

>>51552368
>If the SEC loses,
They won't

>>51552368
>>51557664
exactly. even if XRP does somehow get off the hook on a technicality, the SEC will never make that mistake again.
Terra/Luna caused losses almost as big as Bernie Madoff's scam, and he died in prison serving a 150-year sentence. the SEC is going to crack down on crypto hard, and any coin that ever did an ICO is in for a hell of a ride.

>>51541053
I hope this pajeet-tier meme garbage is a dapp and not a separate blockchain

>>51555024
not an argument cuck