Race To Mine Bitcoins Drives Enthusiasts Into the Chip Making Business 320
holy_calamity writes "MIT Technology Review looks at the small companies attempting to build dedicated chips for mining Bitcoins. Several are claiming they will start selling hardware based on their chips early in 2013, with the technology expected to force many small time miners to give up. However, as happened in the CPU industry, miners may soon be caught in an expensive arms race that pushes development of faster and faster chips."
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
An unregulated currency plagued by theft and controlled by an elite cabal of basement-dwelling enthusiasts who can afford the thousands of dollars worth of hardware to drive smaller players out of the market. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Bitccoin is partly regulated. Inflation is regulated by the laws of math. Better than the government printing money at the whim of bad political agendas.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at least he has a Nobel prize winner with him, one that the current Fed chairman claims to follow:
I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate.
-- Friedman
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that bitcoin does not do that. There is a maximum number of bitcoin possible, after that deflation will kick in. Deflation is something any nobel prize wining economist would go to extremes to avoid.
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
1)Although the official prize name is ."Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Its listed on the nobel prize website http://www.nobelprize.org/ [nobelprize.org] That is not propagada, just common sense shortening of the name.
2) No, he did not
"“I agree with Milton Friedman that once the [1929] Crash had occurred, the Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation but I am also against deflation. So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression.”
F. A. Hayek, interviewed in 1979, from Conversations with Great Economists: Friedrich A. Hayek, John Hicks, Nicholas Kaldor, Leonid V. Kantorovich, Joan Robinson, Paul A.Samuelson, Jan Tinbergen by Diego Pizano.
“I think it is certainly true that ending an inflation need not lead to that long-lasting period of unemployment like the 1930s, because then the monetary policy was not only wrong during the boom but equally wrong during the Depression. First, they prolonged the boom and caused a worse depression, and then they allowed a deflation to go on and prolonged the Depression.”
F. A. Hayek, interviewed in 1977
http://hayekcenter.org/ [hayekcenter.org]
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you think Bernanke does? I don't think so [minneapolisfed.org].
What you think of as mainstream economic thought is all too often little more than dogma, beliefs based on neat arguments that are never exposed to the harsh light of data.
By the way, there's another term for what policymakers do with money printing. It's called a planned economy.
Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The US treasury is not a privately held cartel lol.
Seriously, delete the rothman lizard people conspiracy videos from your HTPC dude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Federal Reserve bank is.
LK
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The US treasure is not a privately held cartel. It also doesn't print money.
The US Federal reserve IS, and DOES. To quote Wikipedia ". The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
So, while what you said is true, its irrelevant. The people who make the money, are bankers. Banks are insolvent. The Feds job is to keep banks afloat. The banks benefit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google is useful, and GP is correct. The US Department of Treasury is not a bank at all, let alone the central bank. Per Wikipedia:
Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot (Score:4, Funny)
the rothman lizard people
What? The Rothschilds and the Mothman had viable offspring? We're all DOOMED!
Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot (Score:4, Insightful)
Comments like this are why I added "(sorry to sound crackpot)"
It is a great shame that any discussion of novel monetary policy which mentions the ownership of the Fed as a limiting factor gets accused of being associated with schitzophrenic delusions and/or anti-semitism.
The US Federal Reserve Bank is literally a privately held cartel. This is a statement of fact, and it has monetary policy implications. My original comment was about a specific method of quantitative easing which would be more difficult without a national currency or with a privately held central bank. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is monetary policy.
Most money now does enter circulation as bank account balances countered by interest bearing loans. This is a very usefull system. Without it I and probably the vast majority of people in the western world would not own any real estate. Sadly though it has nasty side effects in a contracting economy. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is economics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember boys and girls, in bitcoin rainbow and unicorn land, deflation is good.
Like literally, the looneys recently celebrated the algorithm halving the new coin supply lol.
I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is) , but lets not sweat the details.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
Remember boys and girls, in bitcoin rainbow and unicorn land, deflation is good.
Like literally, the looneys recently celebrated the algorithm halving the new coin supply lol.
I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is) , but lets not sweat the details.
Are you one of those clever spambots that assembles a comment from random words that kinda form a sentence?
Re: (Score:3)
I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is)
Facts disagree. There were multiple periods during the gold standard when deflation was coupled with real growth in output.
See Good versus Bad Deflation: Lessons from the Gold Standard Era [google.com].
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
The official Bitcoin protocol is voted upon by everyone participating in the network, either accepting or not accepting changes. The official client implementation, as well as a few other implementations in other languages, are open source.
If that's "control by an elite cabal" I'm not sure Slashdot is the site for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Voted upon by everyone participating in the network"... So does that mean I can buy 0.001 bitcoins and have equal voting power? And therefore that I can create a million shill accounts? Or is voting weighted by total number of bitcoins possessed?
Either way, it seems like the hardcore devotees will have control. Not that that's a necessarily a bad thing, but don't pretend it's democratic if it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this wiki page [bitcoin.it] says it best.
Normally, however, a change proposal [bitcoin.it] is floated with the community, and if adoption seems likely but not certain, the course of action may be to take a poll [bitcoin.it] by specifying a voting period in which miners are asked to include a vote in any blocks they find if they support the proposal. In this context, it is quite literally 'one block, one vote'. In the case of pooled mining [bitcoin.it], it's up to pool participants to work out how they want to vote with their combined power, with th
Re: (Score:2)
Natch', the concept of "economic majority" is extremely nebulous and in any event almost completely based on transaction volume. If you make a thousand 5 cent transactions a day, you get that many votes on wether or not you're using X network to sign off on your blocks. OTOH, if you have a million dollars in BTC but only trade once a month (or even better, you have a future contract denominated in BTC, like hosting contract or a promissory note), you get almost no vote at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"Voted upon by everyone participating in the network"... So does that mean I can buy 0.001 bitcoins and have equal voting power? And therefore that I can create a million shill accounts? Or is voting weighted by total number of bitcoins possessed?
Voting power is determined by how many processor cycles you're dedicating to mining the next block, it's not a 'how many coins do I have' or a 'one vote per one voice' kind of system, it's a 'how much am I actively contributing to the system as a whole'.
On a slight tangent, I can't help but think that it'd be interesting to see a democratic political system where the amount of contribution you make to the good of society affected how much influence you had on the political process. Course I don't realistic
Yes but (Score:5, Funny)
if you can buy the hardware on credit,
1. use the hardware to mine new BitCoins
2. pay back the hardware vendor with your BitCoins
3. ???
Re: (Score:3)
you mean like just before the great depression when people started to by stocks on credit and pay them off with the returns? yeah that worked out well for everyone involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is barely any different from buying a house on interest-only loan, in anticipation of being able to flip it a few years later for a huge profit, after the skyrocketing home values lead to increase in equity.
Re: (Score:3)
Um? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the companies themselves don't believe in the Bitcoin. They're basically in the divining rod business. The only reason they wouldn't just use the rods themselves to find gold is because...
Re:Um? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what are you trying to say? Changing the owner of the equipment won't make it make more/less money. So it either produces enough money to pay for itself or it doesn't. And if the companies are selling it, the answer is probably that it doesn't or they'd just keep it and mint for themselves.
Re:Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, you would want to do everything by yourself. Well, if you are a fisherman, you probably will not start a bank yourself even if being a bank looks profitable. Unless you are from Iceland, that is.
There is a thing called the division of labour which says that if each of us specialize, we will get more stuff done as a whole. This is what built the civilization.
Also, if you are looking into investing, you can choose between a high-risk high-profit endeavour, like building chips for your own mining operation, or a low-risk low-profit endeavour, like building chips for other's mining businesses. By going the second route, you can hedge yourself against the uncertain final success of bitcoin, while pulling your profit from the general public's current and certain interest in bitcoin.
Re: (Score:2)
You could summarize what you said with a quote from Mark Twain: "When everyone is looking for gold, it's a good time to be in the pick and shovel business."
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"people are a problem."
True enough. But also, People are the solution.
Simple version is, SOME people are the problem, and SOME people are the solution. Some of the people that are the problem were previously the solution to a previous people problem. People are the problem, and the solution.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're a VB programmer, am I right?
Re: (Score:3)
SOME people are the problem, and SOME people are the solution
and SOME people are part of the precipitate.
Re: (Score:3)
May be, because, sealing chips is a faster way to make money? If I were given two options one is quick but less money, other takes time and makes more money, I would choose the quick.
Re: (Score:2)
May be, because, sealing chips is a faster way to make money? If I were given two options one is quick but less money, other takes time and makes more money, I would choose the quick.
That's why you're poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps to get the cost of manufacturing the chips down.
Re:Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?
If BFL were to mine instead of selling the chips, they would quickly have more than 51% of the network hashrate and the confidence in the bitcoin network would erode and the value would drop. It doesn't make any sense for one entity to mine all the bitcoin and devalue the currency... then it's worth nothing and it was for naught. No, it's far better to distribute the hardware far and wide, making it impossible for any single entity to gain a controlling portion of the network.
No, it doesn't make any sense for BFL to mine with their own hardware, it makes much more sense to grow the bitcoin network and for BFL to supply the hardware to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?
Unless the chips had backdoors in them...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps mass production of the chips is necessary to bring the cost down to a profitable level.
It's like producing a drug. The first pill might cost $1 billion, while the second pill costs $1. Making one chip costs $1 billion, but make 1,000 and they're $1 million each.
I'd imagine chip production is somewhat similar. Of course, having more chips will result in some devaluation of the currency since more can be produced, but as long as the devaluation is less than the amount saved by mass-producing the chips
Re: (Score:2)
Chip production is very similar, though the prices I usually hear quoted for the first unit (I am a student, so these may be out of date) are usually somewhere in the mid-hundreds of thousands. And the incremental cost (the cost of chip #2) is as low as pennies, depending on how big the chip is.
Re:Um? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually one of the more serious projects(ASICMINER) DO plan to use the first batches of chips to compensate the IPO investors by using them for mining and later to possibly help fund more R&D and production runs. Additional and future income will be based on sales of the hardware
And since this is /.
Preliminary chip info:
Built on 130nm node process (approximately comparable to the Pentium III generation)
It'll use a 15 x 15mm BGA package.
It's expected to run at around 200-300Mhz
It'll be a couple orders of magnitude more power efficient than GPUs and serveral times more than current FPGAs at hashing the SHA256 algorithm.
More info here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.980 [bitcointalk.org] and older (but more geek bait): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91173.0 [bitcointalk.org]
Project is only about 2/3rds of the way through the foundry process, so atleast a month left till these chips could be active on the BTC network.
Re: (Score:2)
Owning bitcoin mining hardware is a risky buisness. The income generated by mining hardware is dependent on both the value of each bitcoin and the total ammount of mining power out there both of which are difficult to predict.
Selling the tools rather than running them yourself spreads that risk around more people.
Because no matter the speed, only a fixed amount i (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, no matter the speed of calculating, there are only a set number of bitcoins given out per time, for one year this is 1,310,400 BTC, which are currently worth $13 so roughly $17M total will be awarded. Your amount is only based on what percent of the mining force you represent, it will never go over this. So lets say butterfly could dominate and take 50% of the computational force (which is highly unlikely since there are 5 companies making ASICS and the huge stock of FGPAs and GPUs sti
Re: (Score:2)
If growing cotton was so profitable, why would Monsanto want to sell seeds? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these seeds and growing the cotton for themselves?
Re: (Score:3)
If growing cotton was so profitable, why would Monsanto want to sell seeds?
In this case Monsanto would need land and workers and sales channels, which they don't have. Note also that farmers are subsidized, but a large corporation may not qualify, thus further skewing the comparison.
But a company that makes machines for making money would only need a place on a shelf and a little electric power. That is always available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?"
They ARE mining bitcoin for themselves. The biggest player in the space - Butterfly Labs - is only accepting payment for their ASICs in bitcoin, last I heard. So their production line is just another bitcoin mining operation: and likely somewhat more profitable than outright mining over time.
This is, of course, false. BFL accepts payment via Paypal and bankwire as well.
Interesting but why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These are ASICs. The Bitcoin mining scene has already gone through its FPGA phase.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember the Gold Rush lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
What you just said is a quote from Mark Twain: "When everyone is looking for gold, it's a good time to be in the pick and shovel business."
Not really worth it with current technology (Score:5, Insightful)
difficulty race (Score:2)
Seeing as how computing power devoted by miners ramps up difficulty levels, won't this just create a self suppressing feedback loop?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how computing power devoted by miners ramps up difficulty levels, won't this just create a self suppressing feedback loop?
It will. Unfortunately Bitcoin creators didnt take Mining Pools into consideration and with them self correction mechanism has a slight lag. Enough to still screw up the market and make a profit.
This hardware could be a problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then they could form a block with fake data before anyone else and then verify it themselves and place it in the chain. It's called a >50% attack.
True, but note that there are limits on what you can do with a "50% attack". Most importantly, it won't let you spend anyone else's bitcoins, as that still depends on access to their private key. If you control 50% or more of the network then you can basically do two things: first, you can delay other peoples' transactions indefinitely by refusing to include them in your blocks; second, you can reverse past transactions by allowing them to be included in a block, and then mining a new, longer chain which do
Bitcoin is designed to resist this (Score:2)
Bitcoin has a built in limit and a built in "profitability scale" for its mining. The faster you mine the less profitable it is. Unless you could jump WAAAY ahead of the curve (as some early adopters did) you won't be able to make money mining.
Bitcoin needs people to spend it, not mine it, and thats a difficult problem which can't be solved without top-down (gov't) influence. People have to psychologically learn to accept bitcoins, and that wont happen unless they are made to.
There are a lot of benefits t
Something people seem to forget: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bitcoins don't just require an investment of cpu/gpu time and electricity. They also require an investment in disk space as well. I finally got around to seriously mining on a 3 year old video card, mostly just to experiment and finally see what the fuss was about, while getting a bit of 'free' heating for the house out of my videocard.
Long story short: 3 months of mining on a 'low-end' card (70~MH/s) has netted me a total of ~0.25 BTC. At current rates that's around 3 dollars worth of bitcoin (assuming a 1
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin needs people to spend it, not mine it, and thats a difficult problem which can't be solved without top-down (gov't) influence. People have to psychologically learn to accept bitcoins, and that wont happen unless they are made to.
Ineed, for quite awhile after Germany joined the Euro Zone almost nobody in the country used euros. Then the government announced that it would only accept tax payments in the euro. Within a few short months almost everyone was using euros.
waste of valuable cpu (Score:2)
Why not use them for the good of humanity? Why not link with projects like seti, @folding or other?
Surely the technical hurdles aren't that high, and instead of causing localized heating (cpu) just to get a hash value, one would benefit society too?
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste (Score:2)
From a society-level point of view I see a business model which consumes resources for hardware, energy for operating the hardware, and man-hours spent planning and operating the mining setup. And what is created? Nothing at all. Just some half-random redistribution of wealth based on a dubious scheme. Participating in this type of setup seems about as good an idea as being in the bottom 1-2 layers of a pyramid. May I suggest visiting a casino instead; probably a lot more fun, and consumes less of the plane
Re: (Score:2)
Bad for stability (Score:2)
It's too bad about this whole thing since BTC is more stable the more people are doing the cryptography. It was however predictable with a deflationary (less being produced over time) and obviously dedicated hardware being developed.
Oh and for those who don't know on December 1st the amount of BTC entering the market was cut by 50%... so far price increase is about 20%
Re: (Score:3)
The ASIC era will aim to fix the 51% attack problem... or at least make it extremely costly. The farther we get into the ASIC era, the less and less likely and more costly it will be for someone to subvert the network.
1 year ago, it would have taken less than 1 million dollars to wreck the bitcoin network. 1 year from now it will take at least $100 million, if not more, assuming the price of BTC doesn't tank or something.
Granted, $100 million is pocket change for some large corporations and of course gove
Great side-effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Associating monetary value with computing cycles would eventually incentivize the development of faster and better technology.
I just hope that whatever these guys come up with will also have applications in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
With bitcoin, you would end up with one entity have the super-fastest superscalar distributed parallel processing system, and you are back to having a centralised currency system just like the big banks.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be true if they were building general purpose computing devices. Since the work has moved onto ASIC production with the sole purpose of mining Bitcoins, it's no longer relevant unless you think that is a profitable exercise.
The sad thing about Bitcoin mining is its futility. If it ever does become something that's worth real money, it will get taken over by rich people and companies, same as every other currency in history. The relative ease of taking over the market with simple ASIC technolog
Re: (Score:3)
Le Monde had an in depth article on Bitcoin just a few days ago. I think if you really researched it you'd find the same to be true for most countries. Bitcoin has entered public consciousness.
http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2012/11/29/payer-et-vendre-sans-les-banques_1798066_1650684.html [lemonde.fr]
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-29/dollar-less-iranians-discover-virtual-currency [businessweek.com]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628925.200-virtual-economy-looms-as-digital-cash-grows-up.html?full=true [newscientist.com]
http://www [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
This is not doing anything useful from a research perspective. To quote the article, "even [chip] technology 10 years old is much better than current mining devices". That's being generous. Look at the first semiconductor roadmap [wikipedia.org] chart from 1993 for a minute. These Bitcoin ASICs are being built at 65 to 90nm; that wasn't even state of the art then. This is advancing absolutely nothing except Bitcoin mining; there's no benefit for anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not doing anything useful from a research perspective. To quote the article, "even [chip] technology 10 years old is much better than current mining devices". That's being generous. Look at the first semiconductor roadmap [wikipedia.org] chart from 1993 for a minute. These Bitcoin ASICs are being built at 65 to 90nm; that wasn't even state of the art then. This is advancing absolutely nothing except Bitcoin mining; there's no benefit for anyone else.
I think you are mis-reading the chart. 90nm was well past sate of the art in 1993. That's more like 2003. In 1993, state of the art was 500nm, better known as 0.5 micron.
65nm isn't state of the art, but it's not bad for a low volume ASIC. High volume, performance sensitive ASIC are at 28nm. 45nm is more common. Only Intel is shipping 22nm.
Re: (Score:3)
thinking all the stupid articles about bitcoin have stopped.
You want a real currency? they're called gold and silver. They have lasted thousands of years, and will last thousands of years more, short of us figuring out a way to create them in the lab.
Not a stable currency for long.
http://www.planetaryresources.com/ [planetaryresources.com]
Re: (Score:2)
after all- who makes more money, [small expensive microbrew] or Anheuser Busch
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course for the fact that most precious metals have very limited inherent value beyond the psychological "ooooh shiny" which essentially makes gold not a whole lot different than a fiat currency. In the event of the total breakdown of civilization you could at least burn the money for warmth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case low diversity presents a danger.
Re: (Score:2)
They might be proof against inflation, but I'd hate to have borrowed the value of my house in troy ounces a decade ago. I'd be bankrupt.
Re:Bitcoins are junk... (Score:4, Insightful)
Precious medals will eventually become valuable again over a long enough period of time, but they won't guarantee that you'll see that time. Depending on the severity of the collapse, means of protecting yourself, food, and other basics to ensure survival are far more valuable, but knowledge is probably the most valuable currency available. What good is a mound of money if you're dying and don't know how to stop it?
Precious metals suffer from the same problem as any other form of currency: it's only as valuable as everything considers it to be or as someone will pay to use it to produce something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Precious metals may have been simply magically valuable in the olden days, but their modern prices are based upon their uses in industry.
Are you joking? Yes, gold and silver and such are useful in industry, but do you seriously claim that the massive spike in precious metal prices in the past few years is the result of increasing industrial demand???
Obviously only fools advocate precious metals to the exclusion of food, firearms, etc. but they are an essential component of both a societal collapse scenario,
It really depends on how far the collapse goes. In the true survivalist scenario that most precious metals fanatics champion, "shiny rocks" aren't likely to be any more valuable than "green pieces of paper." A collapse big enough to destabilize all the global currency markets will likely drive
Re:Bitcoins are junk... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd advocate choosing some other useless and less expensive random "commodity" to stockpile along with your guns and food.
Suddenly, the bottle cap currency in the Fallout series makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd start selling my guns and bullets for protection, with a semi-feudal system to keep order ... you already have wealth in the form of non perishable commodities, moreover a lot of that wealth is fine grained and easy to trade (bullets make excellent currency if they are in limited supply). You'd have no pressing need for gold, but you would have a pressing need for security ...
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that because there is no pressing need for it, it will devalue immensely ... the fact that it will likely hold some value is not denied, that it's a very good investment for the eventuality of societal collapse is disputed. You can earn a lot more gold by stock piling non perishable necessities and taking the gold people sew into their clothes after the collapse than you can get before the collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bitcoins are junk... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns and government don't uphold the value of a currency. Trust does.
If you can pay your taxes with it, then it has real value.
If you can manufacture things with it, then it has real value.
If you can eat it, then it has real value.
If you can't do any of those things with it, then it has only speculative imaginary value.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can pay your taxes with it, then it has real value.
If you can manufacture things with it, then it has real value.
If you can eat it, then it has real value.
If you can't do any of those things with it, then it has only speculative imaginary value.
So dollars have only speculative imaginary value for me? (Note i'm not paying my taxes in dollars)
Re: (Score:2)
Is bitcoin that virtual currency where users lost heaps of cash a few years ago when its value crashed big time?
No, that was the US dollar. Bitcoin is the one that is with exchanges built out of ex-magic the gathering trading portals, whose users lost heaps of cash due to the exchanges' laughable security.
then they laugh at you (Score:2)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Bitcoin is halfway there!
Re: (Score:3)
It does kinda make me want to invent my own internet currency, so I can get huge amounts of money.
Re: (Score:3)