This is the only thing that makes sense, think about it, I don't care how informed you are there is no way you could make so many decisions in the design and early days of bitcoin that eventually panned out to be right just by chance  Just because you were ignorant of all the economic and technical brainstorming lead up to Bitcoin, over the course of decades, doesn't mean Satoshi was a time traveller. |
|
|
|
Try to get a few people to agree to shoot themselves in the foot, I'd like to see you do that Have you been in a coma since 2007? |
|
|
|
We don't need to discuss that masters of Bitcoin are two-three biggest mining pools, do we? While in NXT over 300 individual accounts successfully generate blocks. Well, who is more centralized? We don't, because it doesn't matter. In a PoW system, if the three largest mining miners decide to misbehave it's at least possible in principle for somebody else to build out more hashing power and compete with them. The miners can not block competition via any other method than expending more real opportunity cost to do so. In a PoS system, if the majority of the stakeholders decide to misbehave then the system is fucked. Stakeholders are insulated from competition because they only lose stake if they choose to sell their coins to their competitors. In a PoW system, if a cartel forms it's an annoyance. PoS systems are inherently designed to form and protect cartels. |
|
|
|
Well, both PoW and PoS models have that under control. PoS is in no way comparable to PoW and it's misleading and deceptive to market as such. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdfPoS is the central bank/Federal Reserve system with a different set of masters. Fuck that. |
|
|
|
Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.
Fiat is the enemy here. Fiat is not the enemy. Bad money is the enemy. In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
But the evil of state-backed currency needs to be exorcized and expelled for something better. The people who can look at the legacy of blood and death and misery directly caused by the nation-state and still advocate for it are the ones who are in a cult. |
|
|
|
So how does a Colored coin representing 1oz of gold actually transmit gold? Wouldn't this require the trust of 3 parties as with ripple?
Colored coin is like a voucher. Obviously, it doesn't transfer any physical item. When you receive a voucher, you can either send it to somebody else or try to redeem it. Colored coins are not magic, it's just a way to do vouchers on top of Bitcoin blockchain. Ripple and other similar project are doing no one any favours by muddying the waters and ignoring the distinction between a representation of value and the value itself. |
|
|
|
There is absolutely no need to incorporate it into Bitcoin Core.
FYI first two implementations were actually in C++ (the first one was a proof-of-concept which modified Bitcoin Core (bitcoind), the second one was Armory-based).
It would take just a couple of days to add a color kernel to Bitcoin Core, but what's the point? How are you going to use it? There is a need to incorporate it into btcd, but Monetas is going to handle that. The point is that Open-Transactions is already an excellent system for managing vouchers and the metadata associated with them, and just needs some kind of objective server-independent representation of them for maximum functionality. What's going to happen is that OT servers will run btcd nodes in the back end (theoretically they could also run bitcoind, but who'd want to?) and OT clients will handle all the front end functionality. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to own any Bitcoins, then you don't have to.
If believe that the only value in Bitcoin is low transaction fees, then you should sell all yours now and find something else to do with your time.
Don't worry - since Bitcoin is doomed so you won't be missing much.
|
|
|
|
Congress passed the laws, it has nothing to do with Coinbase "turning evil." A little bit of reading comprehension work is an investment that will pay out forever. |
|
|
|
Oh yes I know that my public key is sent only when I spend Bitcoin, the mistake that i've done is to consider using only one bitcoin address for more transactions. Now i've understood why we use it, it is not necessary but it is a good way to prevent some attacks or problem, thank you to everyone Public keys in Bitcoin are ephemeral. It's an error to use them more than once. |
|
|
|
nonsense, poeple are many many irrational fears about bitcoin this is one of them.
Pretty sure he's excluding the people you are talking with the word "serious." |
|
|
|
There cannot be rigorous arguments in that sort of subject. Called it. Maintaining your belief requires you to preemptively deny the possibility of being wrong, just like any other religion. Quite the contrary. Believing that your belief is certain and objective, rather than just probable and subjective, is the mark of religion. There can't be rigorous arguments in economics or other "soft sciences". It is pointless to debate if we start disagreeing right there... (Haven't you never read priests, politicians, and assorted pundits "prove rigorously" all sort of weird and contradictory ideas, from creationism to communism to why gun control is good/bad and beyond? Why do you think that those sciences are called "soft"?) Agreeing with Sr. Stolfo here. Economics, politics, etc. are at least partially based on an individual's set of preferences. Arguing which of those sets is superior to another won't work unless you appeal to a set of higher axioms, which eventually always turn out to be ideologically motivated. That said, there is one case in which a rigorous political/economical argument can be made: in showing that one's set of preferences is contradictory. However, the problem is that even in those potentially rigorous arguments, one will need to make some assumptions that are not easily seen as "objective", so we're back to the first point - that economical/political objectivity doesn't practically exist. Did a thousand years of alchemy prove that chemistry didn't exist? |
|
|
|
Yes, gov will kill it. NO gov will allow a currency out of control.
They will try, and they will fail. |
|
|
|
There cannot be rigorous arguments in that sort of subject. Called it. Maintaining your belief requires you to preemptively deny the possibility of being wrong, just like any other religion. |
|
|
|
beneficial for every individual player I disagree only with this part. The people who derive unearned benefits from the current corrupt system, and who prefer those unearned benefits to a more fair system, will not benefit from Bitcoin. Even if you could prove that Ben Bernanke would end up with more real disposable income in a Bitcoin world than a Dollar world, you still can't unilaterally conclude that Ben Bernanke would benefit from the change. This is because value is subjective and only Ben Bernanke can determine whether a world in which he has less control over other people's money and more disposable income of his own, compared to the present, is a benefit to him. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but the belief that it is possible to get rid of governments, and that society will be better without them, is religion. One cannot be convinced of that by argument or historical examples; one has to take it on faith. You've gotten things confused - you're the one taking things on faith. There are, in fact, rigorous logical arguments that prove government is incompatible with any consistent definition of ethics. The fact that you've blindly asserted that those arguments don't exist, instead of asking whether or not they exist, shows that you probably wouldn't accept them even if you were unable to refute them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
