One of the Largest Owners of Bitcoin, Who Reportedly Held As Much As $1 Billion, Is Dead At 41 (marketwatch.com) 104
Billionaire bitcoin owner Mircea Popescu has reportedly died, leaving behind a cache of virtual currency and a controversial crypto legacy. MarketWatch reports: The bitcoin pioneer, who was believed to own over $1 billion in the world's No. 1 crypto, making him, at the time, one of the asset's larger single-holders, died off the coast of Costa Rica, according to a Spanish-language publication, Teletica.com, which reported last week that a foreigner had drowned at Playa Hermosa de Garabito, Puntarenas in Costa Rica, describing him as a 41-year old of Polish origin. Popescu was viewed as a pioneer in digital assets and one of the earliest adopters. An article in Bitcoin Magazine written by Pete Rizzo said that Popescu was known for starting MPEx, a Bitcoin securities exchange, around the same time as the Coinbase Global launched. At its mid-April peak this year, Popescu's bitcoin holdings would have been worth nearly $2 billion. Further reading: Bitcoin Magazine, Coinspeaker
Honey, about our bitcoin (Score:1, Troll)
Sell fast!
Re: (Score:1)
It may be true, it may not.
McAfee was a fucking nutcase (bless his crazy fucking heart)
I have no trouble believing he offed himself.
He may have been in a Spanish prison awaiting extradition to the US, but ask yourself why he wasn't in Belize.
In short, you just took a conspiracy theory, and stated it as fact, which makes you a form of life somewhere below pond scum, so fuck you very much and go step in front of traffic. Thank you.
Well, his tat claims murder (Score:2)
There is no evidence to support that.
Other than his testimony. His tattoo saying if he commits suicide in prison its really a murder. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking spare me.
His $WHACKD tattoo and dumb fucking twitter commentary?
That's testimony?
Was that before, or after his first failed suicide attempt?
Think about that... failed suicide attempt. Like little commandos in black suits snuck in there... staged a suicide attempt... that failed?
Should I start dredging up all the dumb fucking shit that has come out of that dude's mouth and/or twitter feed?
Just seriously.. Stop with the fucking conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than his testimony. His tattoo saying if he commits suicide in prison its really a murder. :-)
His testimony? Fucking spare me.
blah
blah, blah
blah, blah, blah
blah, blah, blah, blah
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Just seriously.. Stop with the fucking conspiracy theories.
Just seriously, develop a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally, this led to me assuming the worst.
If I'm wrong, and you've somehow gotten a fucking clue, then please- forgive me.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, I had already written you off as a dumb motherfucker who likes to have opinions about shit he doesn't understand, just based on past conversations with you where you were way the fuck over your head. Naturally, this led to me assuming the worst. If I'm wrong, and you've somehow gotten a fucking clue, then please- forgive me.
Your past and present erroneous assumptions are forgiven. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
You literally argued with a professional engineer with a computer science background on CPU memory architectures, using marketing material.
It's hard to forgive that. It's like someone arguing with an neurosurgeon about glioblastoma resection safety because they saw a cool documentary on Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Past wasn't an assumption. You literally argued with a professional engineer with a computer science background on CPU memory architectures, using marketing material.
Not at all. The information available on Apple Silicon's Unified Memory was far beyond marketing material. My argument was that Apple achieved higher performance in part through avoiding some memory copies. You then offered red herrings such as Apple still has to copy memory from ram to cpu in order to execute code. You apparently had problems with the concept of avoiding "some" memory copies required of a convention PC architecture, the concept of "fewer" memory copies during time critical operations, of "
Re: (Score:2)
A CPU has a memory dispatch bus. Where it directs those is not relevant.
There's no difference between VRAM, or different chips in main RAM, other than which controller over which bus the dispatch is sent to. Period. All stop. The addressing is, and has been unified for as long as we've had PCIe.
Red herrings weren't red herrings, they were to try to help you understand that, which you apparently still
Re: (Score:2)
You still have no idea what you're talking about, because you have no idea how memory architecture works. A CPU has a memory dispatch bus. Where it directs those is not relevant. There's no difference between VRAM, or different chips in main RAM, other than which controller over which bus the dispatch is sent to. Period. All stop. The addressing is, and has been unified for as long as we've had PCIe.
Thank you for proving my red herring point. The difference remains, that Apple's unified memory implementation at the SoC level helps avoid transferring data. For example between RAM and discrete VRAM.
"Copies" by which you use the term, are done because VRAM is much faster in bulk transfers than system RAM, ...
Copies occur at the speed of the slower device. Discrete VRAM only has a performance advantage after it has copied the data, when it is accessing its VRAM independently.
On a CPU, and you have a pointer that points at an address that is mapped to VRAM via the GART, then the only "copy" is the write-through copy into that CPU's cache.
No. You are merely getting into the implementation details of the copying of RAM to VRAM via DMA. A copy Apple is trying to avoid in the first
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for proving my red herring point. The difference remains, that Apple's unified memory implementation at the SoC level helps avoid transferring data. For example between RAM and discrete VRAM.
This is a nonsensical statement.
It doesn't avoid it any more than any PC architecture.
It functions identically to a current Intel iGPU, and it functions in an inferior fashion to a system with VRAM.
There is extensive testing done on the performance tradeoffs of copying data to fast VRAM for a kernel to work on, as opposed to fetching it directly from system RAM.
The performance is drastically lower when fetching from slow system RAM, so we continue to copy.
iGPUs do it because they have no choice. The
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for proving my red herring point. The difference remains, that Apple's unified memory implementation at the SoC level helps avoid transferring data. For example between RAM and discrete VRAM.
This is a nonsensical statement. It doesn't avoid it any more than any PC architecture. It functions identically to a current Intel iGPU, ...
On PCs Integrated GPUs tend to mimic discrete GPUs and maintain their own VRAM. Data still get copied and processed "locally", even if the "VRAM" is shared system RAM.
Also the bandwidth and latency of Apple's unified memory will be better than a PC's shared system memory.
And Apple's unified memory is not some GPU hack, its available to other non-GPU devices in the SoC.
There is extensive testing done on the performance tradeoffs of copying data to fast VRAM for a kernel to work on, as opposed to fetching it directly from system RAM.
PC system RAM, which has different bandwidth and latency than Apple's unified memory.
Copies occur at the speed of the slower device. Discrete VRAM only has a performance advantage after it has copied the data, when it is accessing its VRAM independently.
Copies do happen at the speed of the slower device. But the work is done at the speed of the faster device. Since you have just made it abundantly clear you continue to have no idea what the fuck you're talking about ...
LOL. You realize you simply restated what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
On PCs Integrated GPUs tend to mimic discrete GPUs and maintain their own VRAM. Data still get copied and processed "locally", even if the "VRAM" is shared system RAM.
That is not, and has not been true for a very long time. There was a time when it was true, so I can forgive you for thinking that it still is, particularly since Apple is trying to sell it as something new.
That's a matter of graphic framework, not hardware. You need to be using DX11+ or Vulkan (on PCs) to have the primitives required.
Also the bandwidth and latency of Apple's unified memory will be better than a PC's shared system memory.
This is patently false, at least for iGPUs.
The Intel IGP is connected to the same root complex as the CPU.
For PCIe peripherals, this is obviously true, and was never in con
Re: (Score:2)
On PCs Integrated GPUs tend to mimic discrete GPUs and maintain their own VRAM. Data still get copied and processed "locally", even if the "VRAM" is shared system RAM.
That is not, and has not been true for a very long time.
Having a window that allows a bank switching approach would not count as comparable.
That's a matter of graphic framework, not hardware. You need to be using DX11+ or Vulkan (on PCs) to have the primitives required.
And yet graphics benchmarks and video games show Apple M1 beating, significantly, Intel and AMD integrated GPUs.
Also the bandwidth and latency of Apple's unified memory will be better than a PC's shared system memory.
This is patently false, at least for iGPUs.
Nope, that's the point of putting the memory on the SoC rather than on the motherboard. Better timing.
The Intel IGP is connected to the same root complex as the CPU.
Shared memory is still on the motherboard. If an integrated GPU has on board VRAM then we are back to copying from main memory just like with discrete GPUs.
The M1 isn't bad- it's LPDDR4, but you can get PCs with much lower latency and much higher throughput. There are plenty of benchmarks out that show this.
Laptop class PCs not desktops. And then we have the inconv
Re: (Score:2)
You're like arguing with a video game console fanboy.
Having a window that allows a bank switching approach would not count as comparable.
Nobody has any idea what the fuck you're talking about here, because that's simply not how it works.
Educate [intel.com] yourself [justia.com], jackass [microsoft.com].
And yet graphics benchmarks and video games show Apple M1 beating, significantly, Intel and AMD integrated GPUs.
They do. Because it's a better GPU. Nobody ever contested that.
It's got significantly more horsepower than any other IGP on the market. This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone given Apple's history of making badass CPU cores. It has fucking nothing to do with UMA. That's something that fucki
Re: (Score:2)
Having a window that allows a bank switching approach would not count as comparable.
Nobody has any idea what the fuck you're talking about here, because that's simply not how it works.
LOL. That is in fact one of the options for integrated video according to one of **your** previous links.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3d11/unified-memory-architecture">
Clue: "unified memory" means slightly different things between Apple and Microsoft. The shared system memory on the PC motherboard's memory sockets is something different than the shared system memory on the Apple SoC.
And yet graphics benchmarks and video games show Apple M1 beating, significantly, Intel and AMD integrated GPUs.
They do. Because it's a better GPU. Nobody ever contested that.
How involves better access to memory. I.e. memory on the SoC not the PC motherboard. One can get better timing on the SoC. And no your ycombinator does not prove otherwise. If you follow th
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. That is in fact one of the options for integrated video according to one of **your** previous links.
Incorrect. You simply don't understand what you read. Unfortunately, this is like trying to explain quantum physics to someone trying to figure out how to put the square peg in the round hole.
Clue: "unified memory" means slightly different things between Apple and Microsoft. The shared system memory on the PC motherboard's memory sockets is something different than the shared system memory on the Apple SoC.
You are incorrect.
You can't back that up, so I'm curious why you say it.
I mean it's just stupid on its face.
Apple didn't invent RAM-on-package.
Every phone you have ever owned has used it.
It's done for power reasons, not for performance reasons.
The longer your signal lines are, the higher the resistance is on them
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. That is in fact one of the options for integrated video according to one of **your** previous links.
Incorrect. You simply don't understand what you read.
No, you simply refuse to acknowledge older integrated video designs.
Clue: "unified memory" means slightly different things between Apple and Microsoft. The shared system memory on the PC motherboard's memory sockets is something different than the shared system memory on the Apple SoC.
You are incorrect. You can't back that up, so I'm curious why you say it.
One difference is right there on the comment. Shared memory on the motherboard's memory sockets vs on the SoC itself.
Apple didn't invent RAM-on-package. Every phone you have ever owned has used it.
Irrelevant, we are comparing PCs not phones.
How involves better access to memory. I.e. memory on the SoC not the PC motherboard. One can get better timing on the SoC. And no your ycombinator does not prove otherwise. If you follow the link to the actual data that 100 ns number is only for full random access, which is not what typically happens wrt a GPU.
Oh god, lol. You don't understand how caching works. This explains a lot.
LOL, Wrong again. The point of "full random" is to create a scenario where caching is overwhelmed by many misses and a cache line has to be loaded via the system bus. The system bus being the thing you are constantly talking about. Its funny to see you finally admitting avoiding a l
Re: (Score:2)
No, you simply refuse to acknowledge older integrated video designs.
That is because older in this context refers to over a decade ago.
Zero-copy UMA has been reality on IGPs since the late 2000s via DirectX.
It's been done on major operating systems (ChromeOS) since the early 2010s.
One difference is right there on the comment. Shared memory on the motherboard's memory sockets vs on the SoC itself.
No, that isn't a difference at all.
There is zero performance difference to the physical location of the RAM chips.
Architecturally, it's identical.
The root complex, including the PCIe root bridge, and DRAM controllers are all on the CPU package.
There are decades of benchmarks proving that RAM-
Coming into a very large amount of money (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
like a lottery or a very lucky bet on an investment often ends very badly for the person that stumbled into it. It's an act the repeats over and over again.
I'm willing to risk it. For science!
Re: (Score:3)
At least that's my understanding of it all.
Re: (Score:1)
Mine is yours. (Score:2)
Is there such a thing as inheritance when it comes to cryptocurrency?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mine is yours. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bitcoins worth many billions have been lost by people dying, losing keys, device failures, etc. This is one of the reasons that Bitcoin is inherently deflationary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. It's like if you minted a bunch of coins and then didn't ever make any more. Eventually they'd almost all get lost and everyone would be fighting over the last ones. Or just find something else to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mine is yours. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems it really does a good job of killing its own value.
Nonsense. Rare things are not worth less than common things.
If you destroy half the diamonds in the world, do you seriously believe that the remaining diamonds will lose value?
Bitcoins are divisible by a factor of a hundred million. So they aren't going to disappear if some are lost. As some are lost, those remaining are worth more. That is what deflation is.
The only inherit value it has is the ability to be used as a payment medium.
Not true, in either theory or practice. Bitcoins are primarily used as a store of value, not as a medium of exchange.
You can't use gold or diamonds to buy groceries. That doesn't make them worthless, nor does it make them "lose value".
Re:Mine is yours. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This argument isn't logically sound. It's comparison to USD is simply because everyone is familiar with the value of the USD. By your argument, the British pound, the Canadian and Australian dollar, and every other fiat currency in the world is fake, since all fiat currency isn't based on anything, and is compared to the US dollar. Actually US dollar is also not backed by anything, which is why they can simply "print" more money by adding numbers to a database, and devalue every USD holders value.
At least,
Re: (Score:1)
This argument isn't logically sound. It's comparison to USD is simply because everyone is familiar with the value of the USD. By your argument, the British pound, the Canadian and Australian dollar, and every other fiat currency in the world is fake, since all fiat currency isn't based on anything, and is compared to the US dollar.
I'm Australian, the value of the AUD is based on stuff I can buy with it every day.
Actually US dollar is also not backed by anything,
Actually it is. There's a whole government and military apparatus that backs it. Compare that to what exactly for Crypto?
which is why they can simply "print" more money by adding numbers to a database, and devalue every USD holders value.
OMGZ inflation! It must be bad because reasons...
At least, of all the fake currency out there, bitcoin is the only one that takes real resources to produce (not just numbers in a database), AND is a deflationary asset, meaning it will always gain value, and some monkey in a suit can't just push a button or pass a law to devalue it for everyone else.
You don't seem to have paid any attention to any BTC devaluation event in the last 10 years lol.
Re: (Score:2)
All money is objectively worthless. There is nothing with objective value. Money has subjective value and the subjective value of the USD is the backing of the US as a nation. If you tell me you'll pay me $100K this year then I know with a fairly high level of precision what I will have at the end of the year in terms of buying power. If you'd have told me a few months ago you'd pay me 2 BTC then on that day I'd objectively know it was about the same as 100K USD but subjectively I'd have no clue. And
Re: (Score:1)
and some monkey in a suit can't just push a button or pass a law to devalue it
Yes, that's how it works you ignorant shit-for-brains.
It's not a huge complicated fucking system that weighs the entire economy and intended inflationary or deflationary targets and compensates to match that, in a way that hopefully keeps as few people from getting fucked by economic fluctuations as possible.
Monetary policy is a fiction, my bros! Down with the Fed!
You dumb motherfuckers are going to be the death of us all.
Re: (Score:2)
... bitcoin is the only one that takes real resources to produce (not just numbers in a database) ...
Resource are irrelevant, they are sunk costs which have no impact on a coin's value.
... AND is a deflationary asset, meaning it will always gain value ...
No. That assume demand remains constant. If demand drop the value will drop. Say if the community moves on to a better coin.
... and some monkey in a suit can't just push a button or pass a law to devalue it for everyone else ...
Sure they can, if they are the leadership of a totalitarian government where the majority of mining takes place. Then they can forcibly launch a 51% attack and create fake transactions to destroy bitcoin's credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
By your argument, the British pound, the Canadian and Australian dollar, and every other fiat currency in the world is fake, since all fiat currency isn't based on anything
This isn't true, and is one of the most pervasive and pernicious errors in understanding fiat currencies.
Fiat currencies, as they exist today, are based on debt, on legally-binding promises to repay. When a US dollar (or other fiat curency unit) is created, it does not come into existence alone. Like pair production [wikipedia.org] in quantum mechanics, in which pairs of particles and anti-particles come into existence together and eventually mutually self-annihilate, each dollar comes into existence with a balancing do
Re: (Score:1)
You're either a troll or an idiot.
I'll tell you what, how about a little bet over 100USD or 0.003BTC. Right now, they are about equal value. If in 10 years the 0.003BTC is worth more than the 100USD, you have to pay me 0.003BTC, if the100USD is worth more than the 0.003BTC, I have to pay you the 100USD.
Would you take that bet? I'm guessing not...
Re: (Score:1)
What a great lucid argument with such excellent, clear and concise points. Good to know you can articulate your position well.
BTW, two brothers are doing some con in North Carolina called an "Airplane", they are suggesting humans can fly like birds. What a bunch of fucking morons! Next they'll tell us that they can strap a bomb to our ass and fly us to the moon!
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually the best argument for Bitcoin that I have seen. I would be willing to bet $100 that 0.003BTC would be worth less than $100 ten years from now, but I would not be willing to bet 0.003BTC. I personally think that 0.003BTC it is unlikely to be worth anything in 10 years, but it could go up astronomically, and that makes for a compelling argument.
Even if I think that Bitcoin is a foolish investment it still makes for a pretty interesting gamble. If I would have gambled a few hundred dollar
Re: (Score:2)
All money is objectively worthless.
Fiat currency has objective value, though the denomination of that value is subjective. See https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
What's your contact info? We'll need to set up a trust to hold the bitcoin and the cash until a winner can be determined.
Re: (Score:1)
Rareness alone is not a measure of value.
Every snowflake is unique - that's as rare as you can get. Each one doesn't have much value though.
Crypto currencies are like that - any number of them can be created. and there are currently more crypto currencies than there are real currencies.
There are currently 164 official national currencies in the world, and 1583 crypto currencies on coinmarketcap.com
Their only real value is that other people think they might be worth something.
With physical currencies, that'
Re: (Score:2)
If you destroy half the diamonds in the world, do you seriously believe that the remaining diamonds will lose value?
No, because the catch is you can't really destroy diamonds, at least not with the same ease that BTC and other cryptocurrencies can be made unusable.
Why people tout this deflationary aspect of Bitcoin as a positive is really beyond me - about 20% of all BTC mined today is already unusable. It is stupidly easy to make BTC disappear forever in some random wallet, never to be able to be used again.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the catch is you can't really destroy diamonds, at least not with the same ease that BTC and other cryptocurrencies can be made unusable.
Diamonds are hard to scratch, not hard to destroy.
How do you think we make diamond jewelry if we can't cut and shape them?
You could also burn them or just hit them with a hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read the qualifier above.
To be as clear as possible, diamonds cannot be made disappeared in thin air like usable BTC can.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Rare things are not worth less than common things.
If you destroy half the diamonds in the world, do you seriously believe that the remaining diamonds will lose value?
With diamonds, that is quite possible. They only have value because everyone has been made to think that they are necessary for engagement rings. If there is not enough supply for the demand, people would find out that you can actually get engaged without an overpriced piece of compressed carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Even if no bitcoin was ever lost, the supply is limited, meaning that in a growing economy the "currency" is deflationary. Because deflationary currencies are almost certain to be worth more tomorrow than they are today, you'd be a fool to spend them, so they get hoarded. Since an economy is essentially people doing things in exchange for money, hoarding money is death for an economy.
Hm... nobody hoards Bitcoin under the assumption it will be worth more in the future, right?
Re: (Score:2)
many will continue to be lost forever. What happens as the number in circulation continues to fall?
Not much happens for the forseeable future -- more new Satoshis seem to be mined than coins likely being lost.
Most likely in the long run there will not be significant percentage of coins being lost forever. But ultimately it will still gradually reduce the number circulating and available for sale -- thus cause a coin to become more scarce on average.
Re: (Score:2)
So, there's a max number that can ever exist and as we're seeing, many will continue to be lost forever. What happens as the number in circulation continues to fall? Seems at some point there'd be little value in something only a few people possess, as far as "currency" goes.
It has little value as a currency anyway, for exactly that reason; price inflation is needed, for human reasons. A currency needs to have managed low, positive inflation to be useful. If a digital currency doesn't have that, then it isn't a serious alternative as a currency. If it is popular, as in the case of bitcoin, it is for other reasons that being a good currency.
When bitcoin goes out of favor it will crash ... (Score:2)
Re: Mine is yours. (Score:2)
I know very little about cryptocurrency beyond popular news stories like this, so this might be a naive question, but is there really no built-in mechanism for Bitcoin to deal with the fact that some fraction of it will be lost every year? Even tangible currency like coins are lost every year, requiring mints to produce more.
I suppose I understand the problem - they're not really lost in the sense that someone may stumble across the key 100 years from now and suddenly the currency is available for circulat
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and No.
You can leave it as property to your heirs, but unless you also included the key to the wallet, it's just a useless collection of data. Numerous articles have been written about folks with large BC wallets that they can't access and are therefore useless. This would be the exact same.
The BC blockchain and the cryptography on your hard drive don't care about probate court.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it changes anything. Since those coins can't be reclaimed, the current mining difficulty remains unchanged and the market treats them just like any other quantity of coins that are being hoarded somewhere by someone.
There are plenty of Bitcoin whales out there and precious little, comparably, actually using the currency as an actual currency. As far as the market knows, maybe he handed his BC wallet over to someone else before dying. We'd never have any way of confirming or disproving that rum
Re: Mine is yours. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does anyone "know" they're locked away? As mentioned, nothing in the algorithm changes whether I know my password today or forget it tomorrow.
If no one had discovered his death, would BC value have somehow have been stable? That's only partially sarcastic...seriously, what's the mechanism to change the value of the currency when suddenly people, not computers, have a strong suspicion that certain coins will now never be spent?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone could spend those at any time. We have no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question: What is the net effect of his coins being inaccessible after his sudden dying?
Reducing the overall number of BTC in circulation, forever. This is the case for ~20% of all Bitcoin mined so far.
Re: (Score:1)
You only inherit the lawsuits, not the money :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends whether or not they got the password before he drowned. Holder of the password is the inheritor of the wallet and what ever bits of the original wallet holder is left. A large crypto wallet is extremely dangerous, the only thing keeping it safe is your willingness to part with the fingers, toes, eyes and genitals. No one would dream of storing a million dollars cash in their home (except criminals) and advertise the fact on trading board, protected only by the willingness to die in agony to keep
There is no authority to transfer ownership ... (Score:2)
Is there such a thing as inheritance when it comes to cryptocurrency?
There is no authority to transfer ownership as with regular bank accounts and physical assets. Crypto-currency ownership is effectively the next person to type in a passcode. Unless a will somehow documents and transfers that passcode, say on paper in an envelope in a safe deposit box, the coins will remain unusable. At least until there are computers than can break current generation cryptography with ease.
Crypto currency is hazardous to your health. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Crypto currency is hazardous to your health. (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike dollars, Bitcoin isn't physical, so technically you can take it with you when you go. (Just don't give anyone else the private key)
Re:Crypto currency is hazardous to your health. (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like holding a lot of crypto has a strong tendency to shorten one's life.
Selection bias: You only hear about those who die.
Similarly, someone recently asked why so many rich people get divorced. They don't. The rich are the least likely to get divorced. But when they do, it makes the news.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI was able to make observations and formulate queries for clarification. (Text format, I think.) One day, it observed that "most people are famous". What had happened was that the
Re: (Score:2)
You are referring to OpenCyc.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like holding a lot of crypto has a strong tendency to shorten one's life.
Well it does when there is someone making sure that's the case. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
So what happened to his BTC? (Score:2)
Someone dying that young may well have never put together any kind of contingency plan for passing along his BTC, so it could be the case all his BTC is now sitting in a wallet somewhere no-one knows how to access...
I rad the article and it didn't seem to mention that aspect.
It does make you think that over time, some BTC will simply be lost forever making the remainder more valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
Romanian, not Polish (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the name looked suspiciously Romanian for someone originating from Poland, but people do emigrate so I'd have given the publication the benefit of the doubt without that info about his birthplace and friends in Romania. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, his name couldn't be more Romanian.
Re: (Score:1)
yup, about as Romanian of a name as they get.
Re: (Score:1)
He's a Romanian
As his name rhymes with that of their oh-so-beloved former dictator, it was a dead-giveaway to anyone not ignorant.
Re: Romanian, not Polish (Score:2)
It also shows just how smart slashdot population has become, when only 6 people caught on the fact that the name couldn't be less polish.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as though people can migrate to other countries.
Take this chap for instance. He didn't live in fucking Romania.
Re: Romanian, not Polish (Score:2)
TimiÅYoara
Re: (Score:2)
people do migrate, but Jesus Rodriguez is not a common name for Eskimo, and Chistian Smith - for Chineese.
And not every place on Earth is as mixed as US population. Not necesserily because they are xenophobic, but they may be shithole not attractive for economic migrants.
Re: Romanian, not Polish (Score:2)
"Drowned" (Score:2, Funny)
The bitcoin pioneer, who was believed to own over $1 billion in the world's No. 1 crypto, making him, at the time, one of the asset's larger single-holders, died off the coast of Costa Rica, according to a Spanish-language publication, Teletica.com, which reported last week that a foreigner had drowned at Playa Hermosa de Garabito, Puntarenas in Costa Rica, describing him as a 41-year old of Polish origin
Sure. He "drowned"
Re:"Drowned" (Score:5, Informative)
uh... (Score:2)
bitcoin...magazine? the fuck is that shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin Magazine was started by this weird Russian kid, Vitalik Buterin. Perhaps you've heard of him? He's the guy working on On-chain Oligarchy these days, after previously being asked to leave Bitcoin by the coretards.
30k BTC (Score:1)
How long would it take to mine a single bitcoin (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
0.2 hash/sec, someone actually did it and the niche circuit all ran the headline.
https://decrypt.co/66226/you-c... [decrypt.co]
Not a terribly fancy equation, even a human working by hand was rated at 0.67 hashes/day.
http://www.righto.com/2014/09/... [righto.com]
My understanding was coins aren't mined individually, iirc the correct hash yields a chunk (was 25 coins? but that was years ago so I think it's smaller now?) somewhat comparable to a winning lottery scratcher. People tend to give out their hashes in the name of a guild, taki
Been done before (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
He was Romanian, not Polish (Score:1)
The big question (Score:1)
Did anyone else know the password to his wallet?
I bet a lot of electronic coins will be locked away forever because nobody knows the password to their security device.
What do you know? (Score:1)