Instead of "56 more characters" it should be "52 more characters", forming a total of 64 characters.
I'm thinking that's just a typo, so I'm going to say no. |
|
|
|
|
It's not John Smith, but it's not uncommon.
|
|
|
|
|
There is also the internal economic problems that China must contend with. The US is a large part of their manufacturing demands, and thus drives a large part of the employment prospects of their rising middle class. Dumping their accumulations of US dollars would be almost as bad for their own economy as declaring war upon the US or a protectorate/trade ally (think Japan, South Korea or Singapore). Their orders from the US would end almost immediately, and many current orders would be cancelled. Their manufacturing economy would crash, layoffs would insue, followed by civil unrest in a culture not known for giving their leadership a pass when their quality of life suffers.
|
|
|
|
case 2) China buys bitcoins and/or gold so that the game of (gold) price suppression come to an end. PM and Bitcoin values soars, the dollar crashes. China is left with trillion of worthless dollars.
Why case #2 should be better than #1?
Several reasons, actually. 1) Dumping shows China's hand completely. There is value to keeping the opposition in the dark for as long as possible. In politics, he who is most upfront about his stragedy usually fails. 2) Dumping also would cause price shocks in both the gold markets and bitcoin markets, and thus China is unlikely to get as much for their dollars in the long run. 3) A controlled release also grants the opprotunity to reverse course, if conditions change dramaticly. |
|
|
|
|
I just noticed that there are actually two errors on that infographic. One is more subtle than the other. Correctly describing either error will win the prize.
|
|
|
|
Every cryminal will be interested in bitcoin  So what? Every criminal I've ever known is very interested in US dollars, too. |
|
|
|
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/05/20130512_BTC.jpgLet's see who can spot the error first! Winning post gets a bit-nickel from myself. (BTC 0.05) Rules are as follows.... Post a description of what you think the error is, more detail is better. If two entries are close in time (i.e. within an hour) I reserve the right to choose the more accurate, but later, entry. Only those with a post count under 100 are eligible, and current or former mods are not eligible no matter how many posts they are willing to delete to get under 100. Please don't delete your post history to play, this will get you disqualified if I can catch you. I am the only judge, and my decisions are final. Please include a valid bitcoin address.
|
|
|
|
What is the latest with this coin?
Well, it's not really an alt-coin. It's misnamed, really. ZeroCoin is an adaptation of Bitcoin, like a highly dependent overlay network that establishes a p2p coin laundry/mixer; breaking the chain of custody that is inherent in the normal blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but everyone needs a hobby.
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I wonder if there is any info that might shed light onto his political and economic beliefs. |
|
|
|
As a Liberal I would say yes. History has shown us repeatedly that whenever a Republican/Conservative Government is in power that they create huge deficits. Us Liberals would need the extra cash in order to clean up the fiscal messes created by the conservative reactionary drones.
Republican administrations generally create greater deficits and grow the federal government, while Democratic administrations generally prosecute unjust wars and suffer from scandals of corruption. It's and irony, isn't it? |
|
|
|
I can think of lots of scenarios where the heat can be effectively utilised, I think it will be an industry unto itself.
I've literally been talking about this kind of thing for years. Heat trace cabling for public and private infrastructure being a big one. |
|
|
|
Etlase2 and I have a history about this kind of thing. He proposes BS,and I point out it's flaws. It drives him nuts. He's being fuzzy because he is afraid that someone is going to point out flaws.
Wouldn't we need to take him off ignore before we could do that? I don't have the luxury of ignoring members. Those who would most likely earn it, are the same group of people that need be moderated. I wouldn't agree that Etlase2 falls into that catagory anyway. He is as free to make his silly proposals as I am to mock them. And mock them I shall, it's one of the things that makes that "Global Moderator" tag worthwhile. |
|
|
|
If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?
Of course they can. Not in any way that's provably sound, in the mathmatics proof sense. Proof-of-work is mathmaticly provable. This is no small hurdle.
The problem is figuring out how to moderate it with an efficient decentralized system while also making it sybil-resistant. I claim I have just the thing in my signature.
Oh, wow. Here we go again. Havn't read your description completely, but I already have a complaint. Your description is 'fuzzy', as even you mention that your numbers are "debatable". Worse still, you start by establishing a two-tier class system (like common versus preferred corporate stocks), wherein ownership of the high class assets are what give you special rights to be a 'supernode'. While this might be 99% attack resistant (I'm not conceding this, just not contesting it yet) what prevents any one person or group from accumulating those Shareholder coins until they can functionally perform a >1% attack? On the flip side, what incentive would a SH coin holder have for selling one? How are they created, and how (or by whom) are those recepients chosen? God this thing is complex, and it's not even close to a complete protocol. What prevents a SH coin holder from using that power to disrupt the network itself, by voting against consensus? I contend that some of these features are impossible on a practical level, and some might be impossible on an implementation level. Good God! That's an awful way to make an argument, Etlase2. Haven't you learned anything during your tour here? Yeah, what the hell was he thinking trying to actually create something novel (compared all the other shit coming out of the altcoin sub-forum)? And seriously, starting a discussion without having a perfectly outlined specification? Madness! So glad the bitcoin protocol is perfectly specified. We all know complex proposals always fail, which is why we have stuck to the horse and buggy for transportation and the good ol' postal service for communication! Etlase2 and I have a history about this kind of thing. He proposes BS,and I point out it's flaws. It drives him nuts. He's being fuzzy because he is afraid that someone is going to point out flaws. |
|
|
|
If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware?
Of course they can. Not in any way that's provably sound, in the mathmatics proof sense. Proof-of-work is mathmaticly provable. This is no small hurdle.
The problem is figuring out how to moderate it with an efficient decentralized system while also making it sybil-resistant. I claim I have just the thing in my signature.
Oh, wow. Here we go again. Havn't read your description completely, but I already have a complaint. Your description is 'fuzzy', as even you mention that your numbers are "debatable". Worse still, you start by establishing a two-tier class system (like common versus preferred corporate stocks), wherein ownership of the high class assets are what give you special rights to be a 'supernode'. While this might be 99% attack resistant (I'm not conceding this, just not contesting it yet) what prevents any one person or group from accumulating those Shareholder coins until they can functionally perform a >1% attack? On the flip side, what incentive would a SH coin holder have for selling one? How are they created, and how (or by whom) are those recepients chosen? God this thing is complex, and it's not even close to a complete protocol. What prevents a SH coin holder from using that power to disrupt the network itself, by voting against consensus? I contend that some of these features are impossible on a practical level, and some might be impossible on an implementation level. Good God! That's an awful way to make an argument, Etlase2. Haven't you learned anything during your tour here? |
|
|
|
I suspect that any particular crypto-currency is more likely than not to succumb the the same sorts of pressures and corruption that most forms of wealth fall victim to.
Can you elaborate please? ... Uggg. In a nutshell:
Wealth --> Power --
^ |
| |
---------------
It's a vicious cycle with never ends well. Since that same cycle is usually only disrupted by revolutionary events, whether or not it ends "well" or not very much depends upon who's back is up against the wall at that time. |
|
|
|
A light client has to trust other nodes to not collude to tell it lies, but doesn't have to trust a single node; it can request reports from several random nodes and compare notes. If node A says XXX = 5 BTC and node B says XXX = 10 BTC, ask nodes C, D, E & F to see what they say (by default, the bitcoin client talks to at least 8 randomly chosen peers). If all of the others agree with A, node B is lying to you, and you can safely ignore it forever.
As for bootstrapping a fresh full node, a full blockchain isn't actually required. The reference client is built with both a zero trust methodology and a high degree of paranoia, both great places to start for such a project. However, a full node can be altered to start it's own bootstrapping from 1) an internally hardwired & pre-pruned copy of the blockchain, which it trusts automaticly because it's part of it's own code, 2) from the most recent 'checkpoint' encoded into it's own code (search for the term on the forum) in much the same way that the genesis block is encoded into the clients' codebase now, or both. It's neither necessary, nor particularly helpful, if every new client has to start from the genesis block; eventually clients that start with an internally checkpointed block number from within the past year or so will be much more common. A client that uses both methods can entirely skip years of pruned transactions and hashwork, and still mine against the resulting pruned blockchain.
Non-colluding, so a light client is in some ways like a Ripple that actually works? And it works, because that is not the only method available to it. Ripple is a fine concept, but fails because it's dependent upon a viable web-of-trust; something that can, and often does, collapse in real life. |
|
|
|
Isn't it ironic that we have this great cryptographic system public-private keys and such and yet we still seem to need to pay through the nose for security. If you feel there is better way to solve the double-spend problem than the block-chain we are all ears ... pub-priv key pairs can not do this as far as I'm aware? If a trustless, anonymous, authorityless cryptocurrency could be developed that did not require proof-of-work; and be credible, it would overtake Bitcoin in no time. (assuming bitcoiners were unwiling to modify bitcoin's running protocol to match) This is the primary motivation for alt-coins that attempt to use proof-of-stake and hybrid POW/POS systems to create the timestamping ledger/blockchain. It's just that they are all so complicated; it's either difficult or impossible to prove that they are successful in this goal, and otherwise do not introduce new attack vectors. In the several POS alt-coins I've seen, they either break anonimity, authorityless-ness, or provablely introduce new attack vectors. (for example, teh problem with trustless POS is that often the mining with that POS can build trust/stake until they are functionally supernodes, and then turn malicious at that point) Proof-of-work is (relatively) simple. |
|
|
|
One of the conveniences the website says Blueseed will offer is a "post office." Will that be a US post office? How will that work?
Probably UPS and a lot of other private package shipping systems. Alternatively, simply a service to ferry your US mail to the USPS on shore. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
