Official cryptocurrency thread (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Altcoin)

[Ragz]

Coinbase has prompted to send one euro via SEPA, took 15 mins to set it all up through Lloyds then told me 1 euro is below the minimum threshold, so googling it tells me ithey charge £15 to do so but then SEPA direct debit is free. Hmm I'm not paying £15 to send 1 euro...

Well I stupidly didn't realise you can send from Revolut to Coinbase, completely charge free! So simple as that, WPN/coinbase/Revolut/exchange to GBP for next to nothing/into bank. EPIC.

Wish I'd done this before selling my WPN bitcoin the hard way, but on second thought glad I didn't. Because since I sold it 6am on the 21st, it's dropped a whole grand  

Early thought on this Revolut is it's the fucking shiz

[acegooner]

He's definitely a hero of mine, and I hold completely opposite views on cryptos to him.

He's old and rich and can do what he wants.  Crypto's are a bit of a threat to his dominance and really what has he got to gain by investing all these later years of his life in understanding/learning all about cryptos.  The older you get the more you resist change in general.  He's definitely someone to learn from in many ways, just not about crypto.

Thing is with Buffet is he's been very consistent down the years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-02-27/warren-buffett-is-an-even-better-investor-than-you-think

When you are good at something for 60 plus years, you can say what you like about cryptocurrencies really. He missed out on a large part of the tech boom too but still seems to outperform the S&P 500 by a long way.

I know I would rather be listening to Warren Buffets pearls of wisdom, rather than Supoman's!

[teddybloat]

someone has been shown to be good at 'x'

therefore in the future you should expect him to be right about 'y'

seems legit

especially 'x', their field of expertise, is riddled with insane variance.

especially when 'y' is a complex and new innovation that the person admits he doesn't  fully understand

in any universe where people are picking stocks or other guessing games en masse there will always be a warren buffet, non?

[acegooner]

someone has been shown to be good at 'x'

therefore in the future you should expect him to be right about 'y'

seems legit

especially 'x', their field of expertise, is riddled with insane variance.

especially when 'y' is a complex and new innovation that the person admits he doesn't  fully understand

in any universe where people are picking stocks or other guessing games en masse there will always be a warren buffet, non?

It could also be the same for the many that don’t really understand the detachment between blockchain and the value of an associated cryptocurrency. The price is nothing to do with the application, it’s formed by a consensus. Before the institutions got involved at the back end of last year it wasn’t difficult for groups of people to ramp the price of specific altcoins by promoting them as the next big thing, mainly through social media. The size and relative liquidity of the market say in comparison to the S&P 500 is miniscule.

There is a particular crypto currency “expert” called Louis Thomas, he like many others started his YouTube channel at the back end of 2016. He was raving about crypto currencies all last year, this year he’s tried investing in a FTSE 100 tracker and gave up after 2 months. Now he’s into UK property after London just posted it’s first year on year decline in years. And people listen to this guy.......

Then you get someone like Buffett, who says things that the crypto buffs don’t like. He gets called all of the ageist things under the sun. Buffet is a one off, a consistent wealth creator for many decades.

Despite what people say 90% of investors aren’t interested in the concept of a decentralised financial system, they want to make a fast buck. That’s why cryptocurrencies have gone through a boom and bust cycle in less than 6 months.

[horseplayer]

Good job there are no dodgy "traditional" investors about

Having worked in a high street bank in my youth I saw enough investment "experts" many of whom had little clue what they were selling sometimes to people they shouldn't have been to be wary.

You seem to have a great handle on crypto Ace at least after the price dips be great to here you tell us now what the price will be end of year before the event this time ta.

[acegooner]

Good job there are no dodgy "traditional" investors about

Having worked in a high street bank in my youth I saw enough investment "experts" many of whom had little clue what they were selling sometimes to people they shouldn't have been to be wary.

You seem to have a great handle on crypto Ace at least after the price dips be great to here you tell us now what the price will be end of year before the event this time ta.

The banks are notorious for giving bad financial advice. Mainly because their advisers were bullied mainly by selling culture, to peddle the banks own products.

I haven't got a clue about the future of crypto, but I can't see a repeat of the recent gold rush. One by one the altcoins whose applications have no worthwhile use, or can be replicated easily by large corporates will fall by the wayside.

[lucky_scrote]

The greatest aspect of the future of open source, AI and cryptocurrencies* that most people fail to recognise is the power of people working together as a network. Crypto is a small part of a revolution that is happening in front of our eyes. I think it's important to take some steps back to see where we are going and what has been achieved. *I mostly refer to bitcoin

In the past 50-200 years the idea of money and economy has changed very drastically. Money is began as means of exchange to remember who owed what, in fact it began with shells made into necklaces that could be traded with other tribes for the food that they were best at hunting (there are perhaps some other more interesting reasons too). Money has evolved dramatically and when we hit the second revolution of electricity in the united states the monetary system had eventually evolved into fractional reserve banking. The economy has done very very well but the problem that I believe many people that have been involved with money their whole lives is that this is the only feasibly way that the world goes round and that anything else is unimaginable. That is kind of true until recently, it is better to look at production rather than economy when we see ourselves as a human race going forwards. Money has been seen as zeroes and those zeroes generally represent success and power. The problem is, this is a very incorrect way of thinking. Productivity is slowing in many parts of the world as we have hit the ceiling on productivity using fossil fuels. Soon enough, the cost of electricity will be virtually free and productivity will go through the roof, ultimately profit margins will come close to zero for many types of old fashioned capitalist business and corporations. With our current idealistic view on profits and success, this would scream disaster. It is already obvious to me and others that anything that is open source that takes the power away from corporations and to the people is the future, but to many it is not. I truly believe that when it becomes more normal to accept this, then we will see an almighty leap forwards in quality of life and naturally we can officially call it a revolution. A typical example of how people think in the current mindset of economy and profit is I have been looking to do some volunteer work in asia for communities, I was criticised because I could go and do a job that a local could do instead, which could help feed his children. Their point is correct, but in perhaps 10 or 20 years, we will all agree that it is infact wrong.

When we talk about cryptocurrencies and bitcoin, we are easy to poke holes in what is right and wrong. People trying to make a fast buck out of a scammy ico for me is a defunct and piss poor approach to what is the biggest and most important technology any of us will likely see in our lifetimes with exception of the internet. Scammy icos has nothing to do with a poor technology, nor does it undermine it. It is human behaviour for some people to have ulterior motives to make money in an unfair way.

Bitcoin was not the first time someone had tried to create a technology that undermines all banks and our ideas of the monetary system but for the first time some very bright spark (probably Nick Szabo) found the solution to a monetary system that is better than gold. What's amazing is that it took 5000 years, probably because gold had every characteristic needed for a perfect means of exchange and value. Bitcoin is better than gold in every single way imaginable.

[Jon MW]

That's a lot to unpack; but a few questions and thoughts spring to mind.

... Productivity is slowing in many parts of the world as we have hit the ceiling on productivity using fossil fuels. Soon enough, the cost of electricity will be virtually free and productivity will go through the roof, ultimately profit margins will come close to zero for many types of old fashioned capitalist business and corporations. ...

In what way is current productivity linked to fuel?

What evidence is their of this massive boom in renewable energy which will push the cost of electricity down to virtually zero?

And how does it make any sense that this will wipe out profit margins? Surely if the input costs go down and productivity rises traditional businesses will be able to save even more money by reducing their workforce and the most likely effect will be their profits go up(?)

...It is already obvious to me and others that anything that is open source that takes the power away from corporations and to the people is the future, but to many it is not. I truly believe that when it becomes more normal to accept this, then we will see an almighty leap forwards in quality of life and naturally we can officially call it a revolution....

In what way is open source better? Why would it become more normal to accept that this is the case? What would be the impetus for that to happen? And how would it lead to a better quality of life?

...  A typical example of how people think in the current mindset of economy and profit is I have been looking to do some volunteer work in asia for communities, I was criticised because I could go and do a job that a local could do instead, which could help feed his children. Their point is correct, but in perhaps 10 or 20 years, we will all agree that it is infact wrong.

I don't understand. How will it be wrong in the future? How will they feed their children then?

...
When we talk about cryptocurrencies and bitcoin, we are easy to poke holes in what is right and wrong. People trying to make a fast buck out of a scammy ico for me is a defunct and piss poor approach to what is the biggest and most important technology any of us will likely see in our lifetimes with exception of the internet. Scammy icos has nothing to do with a poor technology, nor does it undermine it. It is human behaviour for some people to have ulterior motives to make money in an unfair way.
....

The scammy ICO isn't the major problem. The major problem is - what do cryptocurrencies do better than what is available currently?

There's a limited answer with international money transfers (for example); but the vast majority of people don't need to make transfers of any particular size in any particular speed. It might help in future for buying a house (for example) - and some organisations are looking at the blockchain to help protect the Intellectual Property rights of creative people's work; but unless and until anything on the blockchain can be shown to be an actual improvement over what's currently available then why would anybody ever switch to it?  And as these examples suggest - even when the blockchain does provide a better option isn't the most likely long term outcome some specialised niche role for it?

[acegooner]

When we talk about cryptocurrencies and bitcoin, we are easy to poke holes in what is right and wrong. People trying to make a fast buck out of a scammy ico for me is a defunct and piss poor approach to what is the biggest and most important technology any of us will likely see in our lifetimes with exception of the internet. Scammy icos has nothing to do with a poor technology, nor does it undermine it. It is human behaviour for some people to have ulterior motives to make money in an unfair way.

I am not going to focus on ideologies, because we are totally at the other ends of the spectrum and I could sit here all day picking apart what you are saying.

Bitcoin and Gold are not practical mediums of exchange, FIAT currencies are. Productivity in the world has not hit a ceiling, there are still some parts of the world (eg Asia) where productivity is rising exponentially the same goes for the US, only Europe is lagging behind. The demand for fossil fuels is as great as ever, all you have to do is look at the price of oil which has risen significantly as have energy prices for both companies and domestic consumers.

If electricity ever did become a free commodity (which it won't), productivity per capita wouldn't increase, profits would. The reason a business fails is nothing to do with whether it has a capitalistic outlook, it's the ability to identify its customer and deliver what they want.

Scammy ICO's as you put them, are only one of many issues with Crypto Currencies. Market manipulation is just as big a problem.

ICO's are capitalism at work, and for many organisations obtaining funding for their particular project or application is far easier going down the ICO route, than the more traditional IPO which requires much more scrutiny. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can market an ICO causing a conflict of interests especially if they are paid to promote the said organisation, cue Doug Polk absolutely destroying Michael Suppo. With an IPO, you have to select an investment bank to underwrite the share offering. This is carried out in a controlled regulated environment. The whole process involves a totally different level of professionalism. The investor also has a much greater degree of protection if anything was found to be in breach of the regulations.

How much due diligence does Michael Suppo carry out when he ramps up the latest "in thing" to hit the crypto world?  
 
 

[lucky_scrote]

In what way is current productivity linked to fuel?

In terms of aggregate efficiency, the amount of energy required to go from fossil fuel to productivity has reached 15-20% in the 90s (Sorry I can't reference this) and this is the ceiling we have reached. The margin costs of green electricity will one day reach close to $0. It is not hard to exponentially grow in efficiency when we have free resources to do things.

What evidence is their of this massive boom in renewable energy which will push the cost of electricity down to virtually zero?

The evidence is when it happens. As per Moore's law, just like how the power of computers had an exponential curve, so will the the price of green energy go down.
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-becomes-a-driving-power-for-solar-energy-with-86-point-5-billion-invested-last-year.html

And how does it make any sense that this will wipe out profit margins? Surely if the input costs go down and productivity rises traditional businesses will be able to save even more money by reducing their workforce and the most likely effect will be their profits go up(?)

Yes, for traditional businesses that can reduce input costs, profits will go up.

In what way is open source better? Why would it become more normal to accept that this is the case? What would be the impetus for that to happen? And how would it lead to a better quality of life?

When the internet was just beyond it's infancy and the wealthiest 20% had access to it, Wikipedia was laughed at. The phrase "where did you read that, wikipedia?" is still mocked. Yet if you want the fastest and most reliable source of information, you know where to go. That has been the best example of the power of open source and has been one of the millions of uses for the internet. It has helped spread information and knowledge faster than any other time in history. When you ask what the impetus for such movement or what motivation people have, it is the fact that the human race are hard working and inspiring people. Wikipedia was built for free by people, for free* and is in fact, free to use to this date. How many people will be using encyclopedia britannica in 20 years? How many of our children will have ever even heard of it?

*I believe wiki had some staff, but it is easy to imagine it having close to little.

I don't understand. How will it be wrong in the future? How will they feed their children then?

Sorry, the point was not about how that person won't be able to feed his children, that is a deeper topic. I mean that if you add production or resources to a country for free, then that is better for the country as a whole.  Perhaps not my strongest point and I probably don't understand this to a deep sense.

The major problem is - what do cryptocurrencies do better than what is available currently?

There's a limited answer with international money transfers (for example); but the vast majority of people don't need to make transfers of any particular size in any particular speed. It might help in future for buying a house (for example) - and some organisations are looking at the blockchain to help protect the Intellectual Property rights of creative people's work; but unless and until anything on the blockchain can be shown to be an actual improvement over what's currently available then why would anybody ever switch to it?  And as these examples suggest - even when the blockchain does provide a better option isn't the most likely long term outcome some specialised niche role for it?

I am going to talk about bitcoin instead of cryptos since I believe that despite many other cryptos have a place in the world, that they will be a poor investment overall compared to bitcoin.

What does Bitcoin do better than currently is a huge question. How about you put yourselves in the shoes of an Argentine or Venezuelan or Cypriot (some time 10 years ago ish) or Zimbabwean. I am sure there are other examples. People in these countries have literally been at the mercy of their governments because of how the monetary system works. People get their wages in Venezuela and they race to the supermarkets for food (if they find any) since people actually have full time jobs going around the shop increasing the price of food, every hour. What kind of store of value for means of exchange is that? The first big purchase of something in terms of todays money was an apartment in Argentina worth $1.5m around 7 years ago. The person selling the apartment refused to take pesos (or whatever the currency was called that year) because the inflation was around 100%. He kept all his funds in USD. The problem with paying with USD is that the bank wanted to charge 10% for the service- $150,000. These people luckily already had a solution- they settled in bitcoin.

So why would anyone switch to using a blockchain? Well many many people already do use bitcoin daily. Some of us are lucky enough to store our value by means of a bank that is run by a stable government, and despite saying this, the method of fractional banking and the absurd printing of money in the past couple of decades doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. If I were to chime in and say how would other blockchains be a part of our daily lives? It means people can create a protocol for a service that businesses already do. In the not too distant future, we can expect services such as freight companies to be completely automised without any ceo, supervisors or anything of the sort. The technology is already out there, it is the infrastructure that is lacking. Automated driving, loaded by robots, tracked and paid for using blockchain because it is completely trustless. The idea of said service will be created in open source by a lot of people, that will be run and continuously funded with their own cryptocurrency, that will be secure because it is the interest of the miners and holders to reach a consensus on every decision that effects the nature of the business and the effect on people around the world. And if you don't like the idea? Make a better one, because people will choose yours if it is better.

[Jon MW]

The idea of almost free, limitless renewable energy is very nice, and obviously renewable resources aren't being fully exploited yet - but I think there may be some quite considerable, and possibly insurmountable, infrastructure problems to overcome for that to happen.

In what way is open source better? Why would it become more normal to accept that this is the case? What would be the impetus for that to happen? And how would it lead to a better quality of life?

...
When the internet was just beyond it's infancy and the wealthiest 20% had access to it, Wikipedia was laughed at. The phrase "where did you read that, wikipedia?" is still mocked. Yet if you want the fastest and most reliable source of information, you know where to go. That has been the best example of the power of open source and has been one of the millions of uses for the internet. It has helped spread information and knowledge faster than any other time in history. When you ask what the impetus for such movement or what motivation people have, it is the fact that the human race are hard working and inspiring people. Wikipedia was built for free by people, for free* and is in fact, free to use to this date. How many people will be using encyclopedia britannica in 20 years? How many of our children will have ever even heard of it?

*I believe wiki had some staff, but it is easy to imagine it having close to little.
....

Wikipedia wasn't built for free; it spends tens of millions of dollars a year. What you mean is that it's content is provided by free,  it's structure and programming isn't.  It isn't good because it's open sourced - it's good because it's a charity with a large income and an army of volunteers - this isn't going to be a system that's available for the majority of open source projects.

...

The major problem is - what do cryptocurrencies do better than what is available currently?

There's a limited answer with international money transfers (for example); but the vast majority of people don't need to make transfers of any particular size in any particular speed. It might help in future for buying a house (for example) - and some organisations are looking at the blockchain to help protect the Intellectual Property rights of creative people's work; but unless and until anything on the blockchain can be shown to be an actual improvement over what's currently available then why would anybody ever switch to it?  And as these examples suggest - even when the blockchain does provide a better option isn't the most likely long term outcome some specialised niche role for it?

I am going to talk about bitcoin instead of cryptos since I believe that despite many other cryptos have a place in the world, that they will be a poor investment overall compared to bitcoin.

What does Bitcoin do better than currently is a huge question. How about you put yourselves in the shoes of an Argentine or Venezuelan or Cypriot (some time 10 years ago ish) or Zimbabwean. I am sure there are other examples. People in these countries have literally been at the mercy of their governments because of how the monetary system works. People get their wages in Venezuela and they race to the supermarkets for food (if they find any) since people actually have full time jobs going around the shop increasing the price of food, every hour. What kind of store of value for means of exchange is that? The first big purchase of something in terms of todays money was an apartment in Argentina worth $1.5m around 7 years ago. The person selling the apartment refused to take pesos (or whatever the currency was called that year) because the inflation was around 100%. He kept all his funds in USD. The problem with paying with USD is that the bank wanted to charge 10% for the service- $150,000. These people luckily already had a solution- they settled in bitcoin.

So why would anyone switch to using a blockchain? Well many many people already do use bitcoin daily. Some of us are lucky enough to store our value by means of a bank that is run by a stable government, and despite saying this, the method of fractional banking and the absurd printing of money in the past couple of decades doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. If I were to chime in and say how would other blockchains be a part of our daily lives? It means people can create a protocol for a service that businesses already do. In the not too distant future, we can expect services such as freight companies to be completely automised without any ceo, supervisors or anything of the sort. The technology is already out there, it is the infrastructure that is lacking. Automated driving, loaded by robots, tracked and paid for using blockchain because it is completely trustless. The idea of said service will be created in open source by a lot of people, that will be run and continuously funded with their own cryptocurrency, that will be secure because it is the interest of the miners and holders to reach a consensus on every decision that effects the nature of the business and the effect on people around the world. And if you don't like the idea? Make a better one, because people will choose yours if it is better.

It's true that several countries have currencies which have less trust in them than bitcoin; and it is viable that bitcoin could replace the dollar as their alternative - but that's a pretty niche market.

The idea that people can open source entire industries and have a self perpetuating system which funds itself is great - but how do you get there? The enclosed system works - but it isn't compatible with our current system and I don't see any function for how you can get between the two states. (also what are you going to do with the massive unemployment caused by all the automation?)

[EvilPie]

In terms of aggregate efficiency, the amount of energy required to go from fossil fuel to productivity has reached 15-20% in the 90s (Sorry I can't reference this) and this is the ceiling we have reached. The margin costs of green electricity will one day reach close to $0. It is not hard to exponentially grow in efficiency when we have free resources to do things.

You are kidding right? You've said some good stuff on this thread but this right here is complete hogwash.

If the margin cost is close to zero where's the incentive for anyone to produce it or install/upkeep the infrastructure to get it from the turbine to your server farm?

The only reason people make wind turbines is to make money. The profits available from green energy are improving hence the reason more people are installing it but if those profits tend towards zero that market disappears really fast.

I wish you were right with this I really do but I'm afraid you're in a dream world if you think energy will ever be anywhere even close to free.

[acegooner]

In terms of aggregate efficiency, the amount of energy required to go from fossil fuel to productivity has reached 15-20% in the 90s (Sorry I can't reference this) and this is the ceiling we have reached. The margin costs of green electricity will one day reach close to $0. It is not hard to exponentially grow in efficiency when we have free resources to do things.

You are kidding right? You've said some good stuff on this thread but this right here is complete hogwash.

If the margin cost is close to zero where's the incentive for anyone to produce it or install/upkeep the infrastructure to get it from the turbine to your server farm?

The only reason people make wind turbines is to make money. The profits available from green energy are improving hence the reason more people are installing it but if those profits tend towards zero that market disappears really fast.

I wish you were right with this I really do but I'm afraid you're in a dream world if you think energy will ever be anywhere even close to free.

This, renewable energy forms a small proportion of the electricity produced these days. It's less than 20%.

Regardless, corporations that produce electricity won't produce/distribute it for free even if they do make it more efficiently. Using examples of where bitcoin has a place in society where the state is broken, doesn't make it right for the developed world.

Any vendor that accepted bitcoin for a property sale in December 2017, and is still holding that bitcoin has been royally shafted. There are way too many utopian ideals within the Bitcoin world, it requires mankind to be considerate and thoughtful to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We all know that is never going to happen. Certainly not on a grand scale.

[lucky_scrote]

The idea of almost free, limitless renewable energy is very nice, and obviously renewable resources aren't being fully exploited yet - but I think there may be some quite considerable, and possibly insurmountable, infrastructure problems to overcome for that to happen.

I agree with everything apart from the fact it's insurmountable. It is already possible, the energy source of wind sun and geothermal are free and unlimited and will have an extremely small carbon footprint in comparison to current methods that require oil.

Wikipedia wasn't built for free; it spends tens of millions of dollars a year. What you mean is that it's content is provided by free,  it's structure and programming isn't.  It isn't good because it's open sourced - it's good because it's a charity with a large income and an army of volunteers - this isn't going to be a system that's available for the majority of open source projects.

I was thinking about this today and thought my argument wasn't particularly great. Wiki is in fact one of the greatest things about the internet but it isn't self sustaining. I think a stronger argument for open source is that if you have 100 engineers working for the best AI company in the world vs a project that is open to everyone in the world to create AI, the open source project will be better. In the former, you have a system where a small group or even one person decides what is best, in the latter quite simply the people choose what is best. Just like with the bitcoin network, if someone creates something better then they will simply choose that.

It's true that several countries have currencies which have less trust in them than bitcoin; and it is viable that bitcoin could replace the dollar as their alternative - but that's a pretty niche market.

Niche- denoting or relating to products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population.

It's not niche, we are talking about millions and millions of people here. Bitcoin is already reaching hundreds of thousands of these people despite being an experiment that started just 9 years ago.
[/quote]

The idea that people can open source entire industries and have a self perpetuating system which funds itself is great - but how do you get there? The enclosed system works - but it isn't compatible with our current system and I don't see any function for how you can get between the two states. (also what are you going to do with the massive unemployment caused by all the automation?)

We can get there by thinking about the future, if we can all agree that a system that is less selfish and agree that working together as a network is more efficient and better for the human race as a whole, then we can do it. I think that the oil industry and the idea of capitalism is going to be around for a long time, just like I believe FIAT monetary systems will be around for a long time. When we went from horses to cars they shared the same roads for a long time, in fact in the beginning it was made extremely difficult for the cars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws).

The massive unemployment caused by automation is something that I have wondered for as long as I first had a bank account. If 100% jobs became automotive from tomorrow and everything is done for us, what on earth is going to happen? The best conclusion I have come to is that it will work itself out. If you apply this hypothetical situation to the way we see money and employment, it wont work. Quite simply, the way money and employment is perceived when our great grandchildren are adults is going to be very very different from today.

[lucky_scrote]

You are kidding right? You've said some good stuff on this thread but this right here is complete hogwash.

If the margin cost is close to zero where's the incentive for anyone to produce it or install/upkeep the infrastructure to get it from the turbine to your server farm?

The only reason people make wind turbines is to make money. The profits available from green energy are improving hence the reason more people are installing it but if those profits tend towards zero that market disappears really fast.

What if everyone produces their own energy at an extremely low cost?

Your perspective seems that everyone is out there to make lots of money, do you think that trend is continuing among the millenials?

I wish you were right with this I really do but I'm afraid you're in a dream world if you think energy will ever be anywhere even close to free.

I don't dream about this, I just look at the trend and use Moore's and Swanson's law and quickly come to the conclusion that the price of solar and other energy will reach a point where it is virtually free. Just because something seems inconceivable, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Of course it's inconceivable, just like in Moore's law the amount of transistors on integrated circuits will continue to double every 2 years, creating an exponential rate of improvement. I don't mind being called "a dreamer" since I am sure when Gordon Moore's law was first conned, people in their 50's who were alien to computers would have just brushed it off and called these people new to computers as "dreamers". Well it's 2018 and 50 years later Moore's law has held up pretty well. It is probably close to reaching it's saturation point now hence why we will never reach 100% aggregate efficiency in converting energy into production.