BitCoin or Cryprocurrencies?

[Evgenii Sputnik]

Hello

Would you generally prefer BitCoin newsgroup or Cryptocurrencies [in
general] newsgroup?
I personally will prefer a BitCoin newsgroup; in Big-8; text-only.

Cheers

--
Evgenii Sputnik esp...@gmail.com

[Doug713705]

Le 15-08-2017, Evgenii Sputnik nous expliquait dans
news.groups.proposals
(<oms3sf$6ke$1...@gioia.aioe.org>) :

> Hello
>
> Would you generally prefer BitCoin newsgroup or Cryptocurrencies [in
> general] newsgroup?
> I personally will prefer a BitCoin newsgroup; in Big-8; text-only.

crypto-currencies (IMO with hiphen) would be better as this name is more generic and not
affiliated with a specific product name.

--
Si avec Charlotte tu vas plus loin
Mets de la cancoillotte sur le traversin
Je te jure mon pote ce truc c'est dingue
Ça t'fout le vertige pour le bastringue
-- H.F. Thiéfaine, La cancoillote

[Bruce Esquibel]

Evgenii Sputnik <esp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I now stand for soc.bitcoins. Why? Because alt.bitcoins already
> exists and also because I support BTC over other currencies as I see no
> reason for other crypto-currencies to exist at all. I am more worried
> about global acceptance of BTC than LTC/others or the technical side.

If you ask me, make a proposal to do it to all of them...

soc.bitcoins
rec.bitcoins
misc.bitcoins
comp.bitcoins

and whatever else there is in the "big-8", it just isn't going to make a
difference with anything at all.

The simple answer to why is, nobody gives a shit anymore. Usenet died, there
was a film at 11 and no one watched it. Creating a new group is just
catering to the people already on usenet, it doesn't attract outsiders
anymore and no one not on it looks forward to using it.

There are sites like bitcointalk.org, reddit and cointalk.com which have
more posts made in an hour than you'll ever see in 10 years on usenet.

Adding bitcoins to the big-8 is meaningless now. If it exists on alt.* it's
doing as good as if it was on the 8. When usenet was being used as a
research and educational tool years ago, there was a reason to separate alt
from the others. These days, it won't make any difference adding bitcoins to
the big-8.

I might be wrong about the following but these were the last big-8 groups
created within the last 10 years (or so):

comp.mobile.ipad 0000070144
rec.arts.tv.x-factor 0000035096
rec.arts.tv.dancing 0000001012
comp.mobile.android 0000046030
comp.sys.raspberry-pi 0000015466
comp.sys.mac.vintage 0000001933

those numbers at the end are the total posts made to them since they were
created, and none of them are really barn burners figuring the number of
years they are been around.

The group before them was even worse. These were "fast tracked" after there
wasn't enough people voting anymore, which is the way it used to work with
new big-8 groups (minimum number of people voting then a ratio of yes/no
votes).

comp.internet.services.wiki 0000000127
rec.media.players.portable.ipod 0000006046
rec.media.players.portable 0000000097
rec.arts.tv.comedy.the-office 0000000088
comp.internet.services.blog.livejournal 0000000082
comp.internet.services.video.youtube 0000000333
comp.internet.services.social.myspace 0000000039
comp.internet.services.google 0000001609

Now those I'm sure are in the 10+ year range and if a big-8 group under comp
for google only got 1609 posts, bitcoins in all big-8 groups, alt and even
free.* isn't going to do any better. Probably will be closer to that myspace
one with 39 posts.

Basically what I want to put across, there isn't anyone here anymore. Once
you remove the alt.binaries and non-u.s.a. ones (relcom, de.), there really
isn't anything left. I've run a news server since the early 90's and have
fairly complete logs going back to around 2008 online
(http://nntp.ripco.com) and other logs archived to 2001 or so, but it's a
dead issue with no argument.

I mean yesterday (sept 4), grand total of 17636 articles posted making up a
whopping 68mb of data. I carry 39330 groups, that is barely one post to half
the total number. I'm sure there are more people reading than posting but I
really doubt it's more than 2:1.

So again, excluding non-english and binary news groups, if you think those
35,000-40,000 people that probably read usenet daily have some interest in
bitcoins, continue on with your quest.

Otherwise it is pointless. There is just us dinosaurs left.

Why do you think you see the same names popping up in any group where you
have been posting to?

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

[Stephen Graham]

On 9/4/2017 6:00 PM, Evgenii Sputnik wrote:

> I now stand for soc.bitcoins. Why? Because alt.bitcoins already
> exists and also because I support BTC over other currencies as I see no
> reason for other crypto-currencies to exist at all. I am more worried
> about global acceptance of BTC than LTC/others or the technical side.

Crypto-currency would be far better.

[David E. Ross]

On 8/14/2017 9:55 PM, Evgenii Sputnik wrote:
> Hello
>
> Would you generally prefer BitCoin newsgroup or Cryptocurrencies [in
> general] newsgroup?
> I personally will prefer a BitCoin newsgroup; in Big-8; text-only.
>
> Cheers
>

Given the significant decline in participation in newsgroups in general,
I would favor broad scopes over narrow scopes. Thus, I would favor a
cryptocurrency newsgroup over a bitcoin one.

However, I think cryptocurrencies are a bubble that will burst at least
as bad as tulip mania (17th century), the South Seas Bubble (18th
century), and the Crédit Mobilier (19th century). Thus, I do not own or
use any form of cryptocurrency. Given the lack of government
involvement -- involvement that is effectively prohibited by the very
concept of cryptocurrency -- there will be no government bail-out as
there were during the collapses of the dot-com (20th century) or real
estate bubbles (21st century).

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Anything I post in this newsgroup is my personal
opinion and does not reflect the official position
of the Big8-Usenet Board.

[Doug713705]

Le 07-09-2017, Evgenii Sputnik nous expliquait dans
news.groups.proposals (<20170907061657....@gmail.com>) :

> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:59:21 CST
> "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> However, I think cryptocurrencies are a bubble that will burst at
>> least as bad as tulip mania (17th century), the South Seas Bubble
>> (18th century), and the Crédit Mobilier (19th century). Thus, I do
>> not own or use any form of cryptocurrency. Given the lack of
>> government involvement -- involvement that is effectively prohibited
>> by the very concept of cryptocurrency -- there will be no government
>> bail-out as there were during the collapses of the dot-com (20th
>> century) or real estate bubbles (21st century).
>

> And I think BitCoin would succeed and others die.

You're wrong, the market needs at least 2 currencies to allow people to
swap between them.

[Stephen Graham]

On 9/6/2017 9:45 PM, Evgenii Sputnik wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:59:21 CST
> "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>

>> However, I think cryptocurrencies are a bubble that will burst at
>> least as bad as tulip mania (17th century), the South Seas Bubble
>> (18th century), and the Crédit Mobilier (19th century). Thus, I do
>> not own or use any form of cryptocurrency. Given the lack of
>> government involvement -- involvement that is effectively prohibited
>> by the very concept of cryptocurrency -- there will be no government
>> bail-out as there were during the collapses of the dot-com (20th
>> century) or real estate bubbles (21st century).
>

> And I think BitCoin would succeed and others die.
>

Get back to us about that in 50 years.