Bitcoin is significantly more private than credit cards. Credit cards, by their nature, are intimately connected to your real world identity. It's literally impossible for them to be private from third parties. With Bitcoin, even as it is, at least some degree of anonimity is possible regarding any person or organization that is not directly part of the transaction, although it often takes some degree of extra care.
Bitcoin is more private in that it is possible (arguably even simple) to conjure a pseudonymous identity that remains completely isolated from a human identity, with the caveat that such an identity must deal exclusively in BTC and digital goods, never sending or receiving real world goods (or their deeds) or fiat currency. Bitcoin is less private in that once any goods or currency is exchanged at an interface, and a third party entity (could be a government, could be *anyone*) gains access to knowledge of that transaction, the identity of the *entire* networked history of that transaction is at risk of revelation. This is why ZeroCoin is so critical. Spoken like a newbie who thinks he has it all figured out. ZeroCoin might have it's place, but it's far from critical. |
|
|
|
Might be a good idea to not add this to the BTC code anytime soon. Too much privacy might be counterproductive, at least with the government. To have it as a web thing makes some sense.
I guess people who want total anonymity will find a way to do that.
with BTC people should have the freedom to have privacy. And Bitcoin is currently less anonymous than credit cards. Zerocoin might solve some of those problems. This is false. Bitcoin is significantly more private than credit cards. Credit cards, by their nature, are intimately connected to your real world identity. It's literally impossible for them to be private from third parties. With Bitcoin, even as it is, at least some degree of anonimity is possible regarding any person or organization that is not directly part of the transaction, although it often takes some degree of extra care. |
|
|
|
Well historically if we look at the full history of BTC it has deflated at a rate of around 1000% a year, or roughly one order of magnitude per year. In its MOST stable period which was 2012 it managed to only increase 300% but this was a lull between two massive bubbles and crashes. So I think it's quite reasonable to say that BTC lives up to it's intended deflationary nature and is by any reasonable definition is hyper-deflationary.
Only for the time being. This is the adoption phase. It is to be expected. |
|
|
|
Golum's position or "Golums Law" seems to be that "Stable money drives out unstable money", and what people seek is not the maximally deflating currency but rather the maximally stable currency.
That's actuallly true, for some; but provablely not true for all. This can also be said for Gresham's Law. Part of this Regression Theorem, as trader's generally expect that bitcoins will be worth tommorrow roughly what they were worth yesterday. If there is great insability (as we presently have) or either significant inflation or deflation then traders can no longer be confident of the value of those bitcoins tommorrow, and thus one party to the transaction faces an increased risk of some kind of loss if there is significant movement in trade value in the near future. In the case of inflation, it's the merchant who accepts such a currency that faces potential losses; while in the case of deflation, it's the buyer who faces a potential loss due to increasing opprotunity costs. In either case, relative stability contributes to bitcoin's value as a medium of exchange. Hyper deflation is as bad for a trade currency as is hyper inflation, but it's 'delta' rate of change that matters, not so much the direction. |
|
|
|
i hope one year from now Gox doesn't even exist, they've had so much time as #1 but they're really showing that they're just not capable of being the #1 exchange in the rapidly growing climate.
To think of the money they have made and to think what kind of exchange we have to deal with, it's just totally unacceptable. They did more damage to Bitcoin today than good and i hope people leave them in droves, and the fees they charge are ridiculous
More likely the 'brand name' will change ownership a couple more times over the next several years, until it either ends up in the hands of people who can keep up or goes underground completely. The website has already changed ownership twice. |
|
|
|
Can't you just add more decimal places?
Yes. |
|
|
|
oh i guess my avatar isn't safe for work probably....
I think it's kinda borderline. We'll see if we get any complaints first. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't the only bad thing to come out of extending the decimal points be the increased size of the blockchain?
The scripts that people use would allow the extra decimals to be optional and just pass as 0's.
The effect would me neglible. If that's the case, then alt-coins will be a must. Why? |
|
|
|
Wouldn't the only bad thing to come out of extending the decimal points be the increased size of the blockchain?
The scripts that people use would allow the extra decimals to be optional and just pass as 0's.
The effect would be neglible. |
|
|
|
|
I'm about 2.5 out of your list, but you missed a few...
5) Hardcore libertarian/moderate anarchist
6) Rabidly anti-central-banking
7) Praxeologist and/or Austrian Economist
8.) Greedy and/or gullible speculator.
|
|
|
|
IRC? WOT? sorry noob here
The bitcoin Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel using the built-in Web-of-Trust (WOT) trading bot. I believe that the channel is called OTC (over the counter) or something like that, and a lot of heavy traders lurk there. |
|
|
|
|
I don't believe that you can derive the uncompressed public key from just the compressed public key. I'm pretty sure that you need the private key for that.
|
|
|
|
U mean unlimited subdividing (its wrong anyway), no differed to printing unlimited fiatmonthly rent for a house in 1900 was $5
That's not at all so. No matter how it's represented, there is no way to inflate the currency base beyond the protocol. Moving the decimal point for bitcoins is no more inflating the currency than if you were to start referring to all your exchanges and prices in cents rather than dollars or euros. It's just division. Beyond that, as others have already mentioned, the protocol doesn't really even care where we put the decimal point, as it simply counts in satoshis anyway. |
|
|
|
When 1 Bitcoin is worth somewhere around $100 (in 2010 dollars), I think it'll be time for the client to switch to millicoins (e.g. .001 BTC), so if I'm buying a paperback book it costs 50 milliBTC instead of .05 BTC.
We arrived. And now...? The client is capable of displaying the balance in mills, but has to be set to do so, as that is not the default. |
|
|
|
what if some government organisation or the fed itself was the creator of btc ? they´d get rid of their critics/enemies and future rivals in an elegant way. they´ll annihilate us financially one day and just pull the plug.  And how, exactly, do you suggest that they cram the genie back in the bottle? They set off EMPs which would destroy every computer making bitcoin useless. Wouldn't work completely. Not only is an EMP not very likely to do widespread damage to small, disconnected electronic devices (cell phones, Ipads, Ipods, Kindles, etc), a great many people now own computers that are moderately guarded against EMP by virtue of EMF shielding that is required due to the very high frequency rates that modern cpu's and memory buses operate at. Without such common EMF shielding, pc would be subject to crashing anytime an old spark-gap vehicle drove past on the street or anytime that streetlamp that is going bad turned back on. It's also a known issue, so some geeks will go the extra step and actually build their own computers into a faraday cage or buy a case designed as a faraday cage using decoupling power supplies. I would say, with near certainty, that a nuclear war wouldn't get every copy of the blockchain even if it can still get mine. |
|
|
|
More people have access to the Internet via cell phones worldwide than have access to a flush toilet. Untrue. I know there is a dailymail article which made a similar claim, But there is a flaw in the article and your statement is not the same as dailymail's. First of all, It's true that there are 6 billion mobile subscription in the world. But it does not necessarily indicate that 6 billion people held each subscription. In case of United States, There are 321.7M wireless subscriber as of JUN 12. And guess what? There are only 313,914,040(est) people in the US as of 2012. And It's not a rare event. In Hong Kong, There are over 13 million wireless subscriber(2011) but the population of Hong Kong barely exceeded 7m(2011). Therefore, The number of actual phone holder must be quite lower than 6 billion. It could be lower than 4.5 billion which is the number of people who have an access to flush toilet. Really? So your logic is that, since there are non-zero percentage of wireless subscribers in the United States and Hong Kong (many of which are held by regular business travelers, not residents) then it's reasonable to assume that enough common Africans with a cell phone maintain more than one phone number? Do you maintain more than one cell phone subscription? And most of 6 billion phones are not even smartphone. A cumulative smartphone sales figure won't pass the 2 billion bar in this year. In other words, there are at best 1-1.5 billion people who have a smartphone and internet connection service provided by network operator. Plus, there are some people who has a phone but not a computer especially in underdeveloped countries, but computer owners usually have a phone nowadays.
I'm not worried about that either, the trend is obvious. There are likely to be older model smartphones by the time that Bitcoin is truely mature anyway. And even if that wasn't so, M-Pesa ran on normal cell phones. A service similar to BitcoinSpinner could run on just about anything, if the service provider was interested in doing so.
Therefore, a number of flush toilet user must be 2-3 times higher than a number of internet users.
Must? My wife doesn't use a smartphone, and her phone cans still surf basic web pages. Fiat currencies are suiciding, we don't have to defeat them, they are already ruining themselves.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=168176.0Most fiat currencies issuers have at least 5 more ways to destroy bitcoin completely. If they want to destroy it, Bitcoin will be done. Bitcoin is alive because they don't care for now and that's because bitcoin is nothing for now. False. Read the link. I did. It's false. Stop and think, young man. 5 volts at half an amp, or 2.5 watts. A standard bike headlight is about 3 watts, whatever shall we do???
It's not widely accepted. Can you make a claim that most of the people who doesn't have an access to electricity have those kind of bicycle-powered charger? Of course you cannot. Therefore, there are still electricity related issues out there. Issues, sure. You think small. some people have made a business out of using a solar panel to charge phones for others.
Think about cell tower. It's very common that people don't have an access to electricity because their closest electricity line is at least 20 miles away. And in this case, There will be no power to activate the cell tower they need. Powering it up by solar panel? Hello? Their governments don't have money to spend on electricity line. If you're waiting for governments to provide for infrastructure, you'll be waiting a long time. And yes, a minimalist cell tower could be powered by solar alone, but most of them usually have a small genset at well. If you want to see how wireless communications can actually work in distant places, do some research on how the US miliatry does it. I used to build these things. It's not trivial to establish and maintain a 100 kilometer link, but nor is it beyond reach. |
|
|
|
Don't forget that 2 billion people do not even have access to electricity, let alone Internet..
More people have access to the Internet via cell phones worldwide than have access to a flush toilet. Access to electricity is not a pre-requisite. Correct. But all those cell phones need to be charged somehow. Stop and think, young man. 5 volts at half an amp, or 2.5 watts. A standard bike headlight is about 3 watts, whatever shall we do??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p20hxRVj5cOf course there are already existing infrastructure for charging phones, as some people have made a business out of using a solar panel to charge phones for others. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428569/solar-charger-made-for-africa-coming-to-the-us/And using a cell phone to send money isn't even a foreign concept to Africans as much as it is to Americans... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-PesaTherefore, you're argument is invalid. |
|
|
|
Fiat currencies are suiciding, we don't have to defeat them, they are already ruining themselves.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=168176.0Most fiat currencies issuers have at least 5 more ways to destroy bitcoin completely. If they want to destroy it, Bitcoin will be done. Bitcoin is alive because they don't care for now and that's because bitcoin is nothing for now. False. |
|
|
|
Don't forget that 2 billion people do not even have access to electricity, let alone Internet..
More people have access to the Internet via cell phones worldwide than have access to a flush toilet. Access to electricity is not a pre-requisite. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
