One big drawback is once the novelty has worn off, they will be equivalent to regular poker chips that simply have a decorative bitcoin symbol on them, because that's what they are. What denominates a chip is what the house says it is, so the printed BTC will serve no functional purpose.
Simple printed denominations can be very useful. No need to decide each time what each color will mean, even if your house game has a standard it is easier for new players to not have to ask to make sure they aren't making a mistake or getting ripped off. Plus in this case it 'enforces' the bitcoin standard and keeps it from slipping back into a dollar game which is a risk before everyone is used to needing to bring bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I just made a terrible discovery. The English Foundation.This is a foundation dedicated to US English. I can't tell but I don't think they even invented English, they seem to be co-opting it for their purposes after the fact and I fear it will get worse. One main tactic seems to be teaching English to new people, eventually those people are going to outnumber us and (with help from The Foundation) have more influence than us early English adopters. This is -our- language we are talking about here. I don't think it would be wise to leave it in the hands of this one organization. |
|
|
|
|
I have the black polo, nice shirt.
I'd get a hat but I just bought 2 similar hats.
|
|
|
|
Continuously high volatility means automatic payments to anyone paying attention, it's like a free money injection from people who hate bitcoin to people who like it (or are just rational).
To a degree... If you're range-trading, but bullish on bitcoin long-term, it's always tough to execute the sell side. And, as with anything you range-trade, you may be successful 100 times, but then the market gaps up or down big-time while you're on the wrong side of the transaction, wiping out the profits from your 100 small wins; ie, tail-risk. Sure, in a normal market those are going to roughly balance for the average skill trader, but in a market where someone is paying to increase volatility that money goes to the reasonable traders. It's awesome when someone sits down at the poker table with a boat load of taxpayer money, you don't have to be better than average to win anymore. |
|
|
|
I've witness all of this but it just does not bring me confidence. The Founding Father's fought off threats before but without vigilance it decays.
You're saying that you haven't had any confidence in the current system anyway, because "A Bitcoin Foundation" doesn't really change anything except put a public face on what was already going on. In light of this you should probably not be involved with Bitcoin since you don't trust the system. I trusted it when Satoshi was around and I was here for that. I began to lose trust when Gavin visited the CIA. We can take Bitcoin back from this. Amen, lets start writing code instead of posts! Are you with me Atlas?! |
|
|
|
|
Continuously high volatility means automatic payments to anyone paying attention, it's like a free money injection from people who hate bitcoin to people who like it (or are just rational).
|
|
|
|
then there is nothing wrong about having a foundation which will speed up the work and create pro-bitcoin lobby in the bloody congress, for example.
WTF? are you thinking all the userbase live in the USA? Stop acting like all the users or the developers must obbey one unique country. That's why bitcoin is decentralized!!! Relax, I'm pretty sure "bloody congress" refers to parliment. |
|
|
|
...
Disclosure: The author owns some Bitcoins.
Can't wait to see "Disclosure, the author is still despratly clinging to some dollars." when articles are written that involve dollars. |
|
|
|
...the SEC investigation will no doubt lower the value of Bitcoins and possibly scare investors away from the currency altogether.
no doubt eh? If only predicting the market were as simple as this guy assumes. There was an article or maybe it was the BBC broadcast, I forget, with the statement that the BitFloor hack might be the reason there was some confidence lost and the reason the exchange rate took a tumble. Had to chuckle, because this is the exchange rate since the BitFloor hack:  - http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2012-09-01zeg2012-09-28ztgSzm1g10zm2g25Yes, the future is hard to predict, but some people have trouble predicting the past too. |
|
|
|
This is just legal approval to give developers salaries and raise funding for those salaries.
"Yay, we are recognized by the government to do business with certain tax privileges, yay! Bitcoin needs government approval to succeed!"
That's all I see here. Congrats.
Now, if you are trying to be the central democratic process for the Bitcoin network protocol, go fuck yourselves. Seriously, die. We don't need your authority or approval.
Bitcoin doesn't need a government. It doesn't need corporate sponsorship. It just needs people that value them. Central authority ruins Bitcoin's value.
If people can actually hurt the value of your money by (iyo) claiming authority over it then it was pretty shit to start with. |
|
|
|
|
Merchants decide what they value. Miners can create whatever non-Bitcoin blocks they want but merchants won't want them at all. Miners are employees not voters if you need an analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Major claims are completely unsupported. SEC? How do you know? 500000BTC? How do you know?
Who is this guy, it looks like he just reads the spec subforum (seems like a poster really).
|
|
|
|
Might as well both. I don't fancy phone so I don't usually think of it. What happens if you are watching on your fancy phone and the qr comes up, do you need another fancy phone to take a picture of it? |
|
|
|
It would be unfair because it is changing the rules after the fact. Essentially the first "post ex facto" rule for Bitcoin. It also creates a horrible precedent. Once you show that you can get away with changing the rules to 99 years their will always be pressure from others to change them further. Why 99 years? In some years when after a decade or so there are x million unmoved coins there will be pressure to change it to 50 years or 20 years or even 1 year. There will be pressure to raise the cap, to change the distribution amount ("isn't it also unfair that 75% of all coins were mined in the first 8 years). The end result would be a banking elite who can change the minting or deminting rate so that growth and contraction of the money can optimally match the estimated growth or contraction of the Bitcoin economy. Sound familiar? Some of us feel it is immoral to take what isn't yours when the social contract between members is that tx are irreversible and that includes if I want to move my coins to an offline wallet for 100 years I can. Any change violates that social contract and it is a slipperly slope. Still to change it when it doesn't even need changing makes it even worse. It shows future generations that the social contract means nothing and Bitcoin can be changed for small or trivial reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Firstbits at the end of content imo.
|
|
|
|
Q. It's impossible to prove you didn't keep the private keys, and with all the Bitcoin scams lately, why should I believe you? A. I have given out my real-world identity and have digitally signed a list of the Bitcoin addresses used in this project. I have made it so that it if I were to perpetrate a scam, it would be possible to prove it and to hold me legally accountable - something no scammer wants to do. You should demand the same from anyone handling your cryptocurrency. That's nice, but what if his wife gets rare expensive cancer. Also he could set it up to give the keys to his illegitimate son or mistress none of us know about on his death. I guess we just trust that since he didn't plan any of that (esp cancer) he doesn't even have the keys. I don't think it is a high % risk, but it could end up being billions of dollars worth, so a better solution would be good. |
|
|
|
In the CPU mining days when GPU software was just being developed, there wasn't much talk of the price going down, or that it would be bad for bitcoin. Why is it different this time?
Video cards have value outside of bitcoin. low risk of lost investment if bitcoin plummets. With BFL, i suspect people will want to get their money out of the hardware asap... but im sure some of them are in for the long haul. For a lot of people getting their money means getting bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Interesting point, I see where you're coming from... that its a shame that so many bitcoins will never be realized as they're just forgotten about.
Just a thought... if an expiry system was introduced, similar to land leases, 99 years would be a good benchmark for expiry... and the miners could once again mine the coin. Not sure if this would be technically possible though.
That way the reintroduction will be very slow and not affect the economy a huge amount, however it would ensure 100% circulation of all 21million bitcoins each 100 years.
If in the future you have old coins that are > 90 years old, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to send them to a new address or re-create that new offline wallet.
Why not 80? 40? If you could make changes like that it would break trust, can't so won't so we're fine. |
|
|
|
Ok, I've done some reading here about transactions, inputs and outputs, but I'm still a bit confused and I'm pretty sure it has to do with what the client does vs what the servers do.
Right now my wallet has approx. 3.6 bitcoins in it, which are the summation of a lot of smaller payments in to different addresses, plus a few smaller ones out.
But now I need to send most of that 3.6 to a friend to pay a monthly bill for server capacity. So what I'm confused about is since the blockchain doesn't hold the balance per se of any of the addresses, how many different "inputs" need to be summed and linked to a new input to make the transaction legit?
Specifically, what's confusing me is that the inputs to a transaction were the outputs from another transaction, which means they're just differences not balances, so how does the system know someone's not spending over their balance?
Thanks for your help in advance!
Everyone running the reference client (and some other clients) has a complete history of all spends (the blockchain). Miners also have it or have access to it and won't include your transaction if the addresses you use as inputs don't total as much or more than the output. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
