12 months ago I donated 10 BTC to you to make a new forum. You have since then collected over 6000 BTC and continue to collect on a regular basis, under the guise of "creating a new forum", yet you have yet to create a new forum.
Please present a status report of your progress in the past 12 months with creating the forum. Thanks.
In my opinion they should plan it out thoroughly and turn this forum into a sustainable business model. They can monetize this forum around micropayments and not have to worry about donations ever again if they take their time. There is no rush either because Bitcoins are only worth $100. My opinion is Bitcointalk should integrate tipping functionality, it should integrate cryptocurrencies into the forum in such a way that clicking certain links initiates a microtransaction or costs a fee. Honestly they will have to take the code base of Bitcointalk and completely integrate cryptocurrencies into it so micropayments, trading, smart contracts and other functionalities can be built into the forum itself. Then all they'll have to do is charge transaction fees, fees for access to certain threads, but also they can have lotteries for posting in certain threads, reward posters who have good karma with bonus coins, etc. So much can be done here that I think they should take their time and work on it a good six months. I think 6000 coins is only 600,000, and in my opinion they should have 2 professional programmers working on it and hoard the rest. They already implemented a web of trust system which I think is cool, it's only a matter of time before micropayments but it cannot happen right now because Bitcoin itself isn't prepared for micropayments with the Max Block Size so it would have to be done where you can use any of the major coins to pay. |
|
|
|
$1000 a Bitcoin is not a lot and if the software ceiling issue weren't there I would say it could reach $1000 this year.
Speculation noob here. It seems to me that one of the short term collateral aspects of the ASIC war that's ramping up will be an exceedingly large supply of bitcoins in a low demand market. There are very little people actually using bitcoin, the exchange activity is mostly bots and whales, and acquiring bitcoin is a difficult task for your average internet user. On the other hand, there are LOTS of miners selling their bitcoins for fiat. I'm bullish on Bitcoin long-term, but in the current context, $1000 a Bitcoin is impossible. We're struggling to keep three digits, and nothing in the horizon suggests any kind of reversal (more likely the opposite). Please enlighten me if I'm missing something. Yeah, hackers, bots, DDOS, market manipulators, and the fact that Bitcoin isn't designed to go over $500 are all reasons why it can't reach $1000 right now, but when those problems are solved then it can. Demand is clearly there as you can see by the media attention and businesses adopting it. |
|
|
|
When the next 200th comes online we will see 3.5 easy.
When do you expect that to happen? I doubt we'll see that before August, but who knows. The thing is, it seems like they are trying to stay at around 20% of the network, so even with the 200TH, mining revenue won't be increasing. So, how much are the shares really worth when they are receiving around .015 dividend each week? Wouldn't it depend on how many shares you have and the exchange rate of Bitcoins at the time? So if you have 100 shares you could be rolling in money but if you have 10 shares maybe not. I think what people are buying is based on the expectation that the exchange rate for Bitcoins will rise. So the value of ASICminer shares will correlate with the exchange rate of Bitcoins. How much do you think Bitcoins will go for in a few years? $500? $1000? If you own 100 shares now, if Bitcoin keeps growing then you'll slowly get richer until you can live entirely off dividends. How long that will take depends on how many shares you have and high how Bitcoins goes. I'm not currently as bullish as I was a month ago. I could see Bitcoin getting to $500 next year, $1000 in 2015 and from there it's anyones guess. The reason I don't see it exploding to $1000 in 2013 like I saw when it was growing at 5% a day is because the Max Block Size issue restrains the growth rate of Bitcoin. It's in the code that it cannot grow at 5% a day without reaching a ceiling at around $500. It will not make it to $1000. The ceiling however is a software ceiling and that is the good news, it's not a demand ceiling. What this means is when the software ceiling is resolved, and when it's easy enough to buy Bitcoins (Coinbase has really helped with this), then it's just a matter of time. $1000 a Bitcoin is not a lot and if the software ceiling issue weren't there I would say it could reach $1000 this year. Instead I see Litecoins reaching $20 this year and Bitcoin being around $100-200 until they fix the software and remove that ceiling or cap. |
|
|
|
No, they are not, unless you mean small transactions equivalent to fiat paper currency values..
Yes they are and I'll explain why. The problem with the web is content isn't monetized. All content must be monetized. All websites must be paid for somehow. If we use a website like suicidegirls for example, currently it does not accept Bitcoins. They expect us to pay a monthly fee of $5 which ends up on our bank statement to be scrutinized. They have to charge a fee because they have to pay their models somehow, so they charge a membership fee. Micropayments change everything. First we'd have privacy, nothing would have to be on our bank statement. Websites would charge transaction fees and micro fees to fund their site. A nash equilibrium would be reached between end users and site owners allowing the site to make a profit while allowing end users access to content. Microtransactions would allow end users to pay for their online activities but also allow end users to get paid for their online activities. These microtransactions are the major advantage that cryptocurrencies have over fiat currencies. The other major advantage is privacy. Why not leverage both these advantages to produce a fully monetized web experience which benefits end users by allowing end users to effectively pay for content with their revenue from mining or whatever they do to earn coins and allow content producers to get paid for producing content? If you don't have a way for content producers to get paid then you dont have a way for masses of people to earn coins. Anyone can make a blog, get paid via micropayments, and earn coins just like exchanges can all charge fees and pay for their operation that way. Anyone can start a site or forum and earn coins, now you have people actually building stuff, working for coins, spending coins, all which are good for a currency but which will only be possible with microtransactions. These small transactions which are a fraction of a cent are enough to monetize the entire web. It does not have to be equal to fiat money values either. Assume for a moment that every screen name, every account you make, every post you make, every feature you use, all is priced in some satoshi. What if you make money for every post you make but you pay for every feature you use? This would create an economy even on forums such as this. A few bucks worth of satoshi would unlock portions of the site reserved for people who pay for VIP access. A few bucks worth could be earned just by posting quality content on the site. If every url click could have a price attached to it, the entire web can be monetized easily with each click costing a fraction of a cent but over the course of a day those cents add up. Not only this but it would mean exclusive content for people who have the coins and people who don't have coins would have to buy them or not access certain portions of certain sites at all. |
|
|
|
Microtransactions are essential to the success of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general.
I can not recall when it was the last time I paid something with gold neither when someone I know did it but still gold is valued at $40 per gram. If Bitcoin is to be a currency and not just hoarded then it must support microtransactions. That is the only way it can beat Paypal. Everything on the web can be monetized once microtransactions are implemented properly. I believe everything which isn't monetized should be monetized because nothing is actually free. Thinking we can access websites for free and get free content forever is an illusion. Micropayments solve the problem because Bitcoins are valuable. Everything has some value which can be priced in Bitcoins and should be and that even includes stuff like our screen names and accounts on sites but it can also be our ability to access any link on a site. If you have to pay x Bitcoins to access certain links on the site this pays for the site and you'll certainly have enough satoshi to comfortably pay for it. |
|
|
|
The Internet is anything but decentralized and it is no trouble whatsoever for the authorities to shut down centralized services. Nor is it required that there is a low threshold for collateral damage. Witness Megauploads as an example. In that case the service threatened mainly the dominant political player (the US) yet it was still possible to completely kill it and do so overnight.
In the case of Megaupload it was not a threat to the US government, it was a threat to certain US businesses that corrupted the US government to align it's national interest with their business interests. We voters did not vote to take down Megauploads to protect the business model of their competitor. You're right they were able to kill it and you're right Bitcoin will probably be attacked in some countries at some point. But Bitcoin is not completely decentralized, nothing we know of can scale and be completely decentralized. The math isn't going to work. How can it work for Bitcoin? If we look at how Bitcoin is now it's not completely decentralized. We have mining pools and companies. It would also be fairly trivial, I believe, for a great deal of grief to be heaped upon those end-users attempting to use Bitcoin natively, and do so at the ISP and even the backbone level. Do you really want to fire up a VPN to make a micro-transaction? ...even if it remains completely trivial to use you favorite VPN which is far from certain and, I believe, even unlikely... Just use Bitcoin to purchase VPN service. What do you mean by fire up a VPN to make a micro transaction? What does it matter if we did have to run a VPN? Microtransactions are a thing that cryptocurrencies can do better than any other. The internet will not go away absent a Mad-max scenario. It is to critical. But it would not be very hard to make it much less free. Something like Bitcoin has the potential to threaten pretty much all central governments (who are pretty universally cronies of the modern economic systems which have developed) so I think that counting on jurisdiction hoping is a risky gamble.
Bitcoin does not threaten all central governments. The NSA is not threatened at all by it. I do see your point that you cannot count on jurisdiction and that is a gamble but isn't that the gamble we take right now already? It seems we are already taking that sort of gamble and a 51% attack has not occurred. A low data-rate solution operated by low capitalized independent specialists is possible under almost any realistic regime of increased network control. And second-tier providers have a lot more flexibility to adapt to on-the-ground and evolving threats. This is why I see such a structure as having a realistic possibility of enduring in most possible future scenario. A solution where a set of highly capitalized entities operating Bitcoin natively is, to me, a very ginger solution which relies on the kindness of it's adversaries for survival.
edit: characterize specialists, end-users, and spelling.
The solution you see in your vision just does not seem possible to do and have it scale up to the levels Bitcoin has to scale up without changing Max Block Size. So unless Bitcoin is going to basically just settle for being unable to scale up it's going to have to make a concession. If it does not then Litecoin or some other coin probably will and will surpass Bitcoin because of it. Microtransactions are essential to the success of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. How exactly would you do this and allow Bitcoin to both scale up and do microtransactions? I have some possible solutions to prevent highly capitalized entities from operating Bitcoin natively but they all would require complex legal schemes to pull off such as cooperatives, syndicates, L3C's and benefit corps. It is possible in theory but in practice there is the concern that if done wrong it would become just another highly capitalized entity. |
|
|
|
why the recent drop in prices??
Ask yourself what you can buy with PPcoins that you can't buy with USD or Bitcoins and that should answer it. |
|
|
|
IT seems there are people trying to make ASICs for scrypt. I came across an interesting question in one of these threads, and I can provide the answer. what if we DONT want an ASIC for scrypt?
In answer to this important question I will be starting the NAFSF. Any donations to this fund will be spent on things OTHER THAN CREATING AN ASIC FOR SCRYPT. Here is the fund address: LgoFdmpnFF9PBjtxqYckwJiS34kPf1R2TT By donating to the No ASIC For Scrypt Fund you can have that warm fuzzy feeling of having taken a specific action which will not ever lead to the creation of Scrypt ASIC. We won't even send you a T-Shirt or a hat that would give you away to other scrypt crypto-currency users who may want to see these ASICs developed. Remember folks, operators are standing by! Our Wallet Is Open TWENTY FOUR SEVEN to allow you to show your support whenever you feel the need. Again, that funding address is: LgoFdmpnFF9PBjtxqYckwJiS34kPf1R2TT Stand Up And Be Counted! Why not spend it on designing an ASIC proof algorithm? Get some really smart people together in a forum, hash out something and set up bounties. Netcoin has a good idea for example. |
|
|
|
i think the 0.4 BTC ask wall is a fair move. there's already more than enough unfounded speculation going on and an ask wall at 0.4BTC gives still enough headroom for profit if you're only in it to speculate with shares.
Either you have no idea how a stock market works or you're just trying to further manipulate the market. This isn't a fair move, it is a catastrophe. I'm happy I got a good rise from my 'investment' but when I'm held back in the potential reward I can get in an open market simply because the issuer doesn't think the market knows what it's doing and want to control that, I can't be on board anymore. I'm taking my profits and walking out. I really can't see why people would want to invest more risk into this asset as it's clear that their reward for doing so will be taken away by the exchange. .b It's a catastrophe if you are planning to pump and dump. For long term holders who want to buy hash rate it's better. I wont be touching this bond. I can see now it's only going to be dumped once you and others get to a certain amount of profit. Good for speculators but for people who want dividends stick with ASICminer. |
|
|
|
If you're talking about today's event, he pulled the wall before it was hit. If you're talking about the walls in May, he only stopped adding more once I (and others) yelled at him for it, which prompted the promise of 'never again!' that was broken today.
Not talking about today's wall. I was talking about the ~0.2 walls that were bought up quite quickly. Yes, he did stop after people on the forum complained. Serious question...if tytus put a block of 10000 shares are at the IPO price on the market today, would you be happy or sad? My answer is...I would be ELATED and I've bought a lot of shares above the IPO price.
Sure, and people know that there's no point in buying anything above that price because tytus may just as well throw more bonds on the market at that price. However, if tutys the day after told you that 'Sorry, we couldn't get the chips to work, your bonds are now worthless' would you be equally elated? When that is a real risk that you are assuming, you want some kind of reward if that risk turns out to work in your favor. Again, look at my proposal. you can buy a bond/ticket from me for 3BTC. It may turn into 3.1 or even 3.5 if the cows don't come home at all, but it may also turn into zero. How many do you want? I'm guessing your lack of "Wow, give me 100!" is less due to your lack of funds and more because you realize that assuming the risk of losing everything is not worth the potential upside of just 0.1 or 0.5. Now, why would you be OK with this scenario if the numbers were slightly different, say 0.30 and 0.31 and 0.35 instead? Because that's exactly what you're saying; you assume all the risk for minute potential reward but only because in the case of 100TH we're talking about slightly different numbers. The upside has been capped today by tytus. The primary reward is the dividend. I'm buying a share of hosted mining. NOT speculation that the value of my shares will go up. Let me ask you this; what would you say if friedcat came out tomorrow and said "Sorry, we really don't have confidence that AM will ever make much more than 1BTC so here are 10,000 shares at 1BTC put on the market". How do you think investors now buying at 3BTC would think? Would that be a reasonable and defendable action because, you know, it's his shares and stuff?
.b
That is not what tytus did, right? In fact, he posted some positive news (in his mind). What would be the market's reaction if friedcat announced he was going to sell any shares? Regardless of his motivations. If friedcat said he wanted to cash out some shares for liquidity but the company was still sound, would you take him at his word or would you speculate that the company is going down? Some people would take him at his word, some would panic. I'm not saying it'd be an easy decision to pick a side in that case, but putting on a tin-foil hat will either prove foolish or genius...most people don't have a crystal ball. So tytus put 5000 shares for sale at 0.4 (a bit above the lowest ask -- above the all time high). If you think shares are worth more than 0.4 then he did you a favor because now you can buy more. If they are worth less than 0.4 shares...well first people need to buy through the lower asks then start buying into his wall. As you said the wall could be an indication that tytus feels this is a ceiling, so buyers should be wary...anyone that buys at these levels should be acutely aware of the risk they are taking (because of the wall). I believe you're most dismayed at the fact that tytus put a potential cap on share price and he is limiting your upside in terms of share price. Let me ask you this. What are you buying in this security? From the business plan, it was clear to me that I was buying hashing power. This is as if I was buying hosted Avalons or BFL machines. The primary reason for buying shares is to earn income from the hashing power. A secondary side-effect of listing shares on an exchange is that others would be able to bid on my purchased hashing power. I understand that when you bought into this security, one of your primary variables was share price and that is a valid variable to include. However, the primary variable should have been mining income. If you read "Simplified Exit" part of the business plan, it states that Picostocks makes it easier for people to disinvest from mining technology. The section also states that shares prices will "likely" increase around the time of deployment, but I interpret the document as meaning...prices of your shares might or might not increase. The document also states that value of the shares will quickly diminish over time. Again, this information indicates to me that the primary value of the shares should be the dividends rather than banking on an increase in share price. I understand you're not pleased with a (perceived) cap on share price, but IMO you were using the wrong variable to calculate returns. So let me get this right, they are offering just over 2 Ghash/s for just over $400? In my opinion it's not worth the expense at that price. We should get more like 6 Ghash/s. 100TH is a bubble. Buyers beware. |
|
|
|
|
DDOS from bots would be the cause of both the crash and the spike on Bitcointalk.
|
|
|
|
 Based on the stats of this forum, I created a nice chart. What we can see, it correlates nicely with the bitcoin price. However, some other conclusions can be made: 1) the number of new posts stays relatively high compared to the previous bitcoin price spike in june 2011. The data is still "fresh" but if this trend continues, we could say that the overall interest ('talk') about bitcoin has gone up and will stay at this high level. 2) a lot of new members during price rally's, but this trend never continues. So the number of new members could maybe indicate a bubble effect? 3) the number of page vieuws hit new records after the price spike. Sadly, we can't compare to the june 2011 price spike (no data). What could be the explanation? Any thoughts? (If you want to do data mining, check the excel-file here: http://www.sendspace.com/file/atkufw
And maybe donate something for the effort  )bots bitcointalk is now a target I think you're right. Bitcointalk was DDOSed as part of the same effort to shut down the exchanges. |
|
|
|
The article does not into account the whole picture
+ the main argument should not be based on stupid assumption like "the bitcoin market should represent xxxx in the future", but "how much an average human being is willing to pay for 1 bitcoin?".
Considering a 10 % chance of loosing it all, does anyone will be willing to spend 13.5 k usd for that? Not even close...
You're assuming people are going to want an entire bitcoin.. what's wrong with a satoshi That's about human psychology. Why the top was about 250 usd a few weeks ago? Because 250 is 1/4 of one thousand usd. That's why ... People understood that it was overestimated. It could have been 500 or 1 000 as well. You can find 1 guy stupid enough to pay 1 000 usd for 1 btc, but not enough people to maintain the price that high. Bitcoin was not designed to be used for anything else that it is now: - wannabe-traders-willing-to-make-money - negligible trades (for drugs, geeks, or money laundering) What will happen is miners will start pricing in mBTC and selling Bitcoin in mBTC. Not much else would have to change. People will pay $1000 for 1BTC btw. I know I would. But the way I would do it is I would set aside a % of my income or paycheck to purchase Bitcoin no matter how much or how little it ends up being at the time. |
|
|
|
I think this will happen in 100 years.
There wont be a such thing as work in 100 years. Robots will have all the jobs. |
|
|
|
The article does not into account the whole picture
+ the main argument should not be based on stupid assumption like "the bitcoin market should represent xxxx in the future", but "how much an average human being is willing to pay for 1 bitcoin?".
Considering a 10 % chance of loosing it all, does anyone will be willing to spend 13.5 k usd for that? Not even close...
They will be buying mBTC. |
|
|
|
Can Netcoin be the first coin to implement colored coins? They claim in the article that Scrypt based crypto-currencies aren't interested. Someone should contact him and let him know about Netcoin. |
|
|
|
Fighting over so few transactions per second as are possible right now is in my opinion too limiting. I would agree to not having 1 TB as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, but 10-100 MB should be still possible. A 56k modem can still keep up with ~30 MB blocks.  its not just about 56k modems. its also about people being able to mine through tor. you could not mine 30mb blocks throug tor. Use a VPN and now you can. Use a paid VPN.
If max block size isn't made larger then how will Bitcoin handle the flood of transactions it may take to reach $1000 or $10,000 a coin? Changes have to be made and 10 months is a good timespan to expect to have to make them.
...
Microtransactions are a necessity. Without facilitating microtransactions Bitcoin cannot grow to it's full potential. $1000 a coin, $5000 a coin, $10,000 a coin, or more, are all possible only through large amounts of microtransactions.
I think that it is just the opposite. If Bitcoin continues to lose nodes and become increasingly centralized as the capitalization required to run at these capacities increases, the value proposition as a robust solution which is able to withstand attack will be severely damaged. OTOH, if Bitcoin remains highly decentralized and becomes the value base for second tier or 'off chain' providers, I have no trouble at all seeing stunningly high valuations. Remember, it is perfectly possible to for second tier processors to both prove their reserve, and to lock it such that they need their customers need approval in order to use it. This contrasts sharply with the murky and inflationary nature of our mainstream economic solutions of today. edit: grammatical fix Even the Internet has a backbone and couldn't be completely decentralized. I think even in the best case there will be supernodes. I don't have a problem with the idea if the supernodes can be spread out across many nations and it's international. No government will control it. But I don't think it's going to be a completely flat evenly distributed thing because that seems impossible. |
|
|
|
This puppy ain't gonna fly with a 7 Transactions per second limit, even if it was only reserved for large transactions.
There is no 7 tps limit, even with 1MB blocksize. Off-chain transactions offer unlimited tps. I think this is the most useful direction to take the discussion. Being able to send 0.00982 BTC to the coke machine is a cool trick, but really should be seen as the sort of stuff that doesn't belong in the global network. So how are we supposed to buy stuff? Sure you can somehow pool them into bulk transactions but I fail to understand your alternative. |
|
|
|
Anyone here seem to agree that sooner or later we will get to that point when we will have to say 'enough is enough'.
So why not to just keep this point at the 1MB, as Satoshi originally designed?
If you don't increase MAX_BLOCK_SIZE people will naturally start using BTC payment processors, which will take the load off the net, and which has to eventually happen anyway.
Because math says you can't. If Bitcoin cannot do microtransactions it wont scale. If Bitcoin cannot do many tps it wont scale. Some guy here said 10MB, why not? Another said 10-100MB, I can agree with that as well but I think 10MB is more conservative. 1MB just doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months. Please don't do it. As I have read it many times before, and I completely agree with it: Bitcoin is not designed for micro-transactions. The network does not scale, we have a worldwide economic crisis and the Moore's law does not seem to be any longer applicable; our internet connections got stuck at what a DLS's copper can do, and the CPU's also don't seem to be getting the speed as much, as they were 10 years ago. As an average bitcoin user, but also a developer who understand all the pros and cons behind increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, I beg you: don't do it! Instead, do the other thing that Gavin mentioned in his presentation; implement a proper fee discovery mechanism into the client, so anyone would be able to decide how much fee he needs to pay to have his tx mined withing the next N hours... Please let the fee market to work. The fees behind the transaction is a great feature invented by Satoshi - don't break it, but get advantage of it instead. They will take the load off the net and the net needs it. If max block size isn't made larger then how will Bitcoin handle the flood of transactions it may take to reach $1000 or $10,000 a coin? Changes have to be made and 10 months is a good timespan to expect to have to make them. Let me quote the poster who originated this idea: Current Bitcoin can't be sustainably much over $400.
Justification: the 1MB block size limit and the fact that the price has pretty much grown hand in hand with the number of transactions per block (in the long time trend). We have free transactions now (for old enough coins). Eventually a minimum transaction fee for ANY transaction will be several dollars, when the block space scarcity really starts to constrict usage. If BTC adoption grows at the current rate, in a couple of years this scenario is going to be real. This will mean, by the way, that the block subsidy will be insignificant far sooner than most people think. At 20,000 tx/block and $1 fee per tx, assuming $400/BTC and current reward level, fees will be two thirds of total miner revenue.
I do not expect doing away with the block size limit until we've seen its economic consequences. Many influential people have gotten stuck in early 2011 and the "everyone must be able to run a full node in their cell phone" mindset.
Microtransactions are a necessity. Without facilitating microtransactions Bitcoin cannot grow to it's full potential. $1000 a coin, $5000 a coin, $10,000 a coin, or more, are all possible only through large amounts of microtransactions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
