OK. So let me get this straight:
1. As long as one person is using the current client, Bitcoin as we know it, with its 21m limit, will always exist in its current form. Theree is no vote.
2. If tomorrow, the Bitcoin Foundation had a collective stroke and released an updated client that increased the limit to 900m only a fork would form.
3. Legacy bitcoins (Bitcoin 1.0) could be spent on both forks so current bitcoin holders won't be shafted.
4. Question: People refer to "hard" forks. What is the definition of a "hard" fork and how does it differ from a "soft" fork? ELI5
I'll add a question to the sentence I bolded. If I make a transaction on the newly created fork-chain, wouldn't this be a legitimate transaction on the bitcoin chain as well? Meaning if someone relays transactions between chains you can't really spend coins from one chain only. Is there a good way to fork the chain without this happening? |
|
|
|
A list of believers in technical analysis.....and the fortunes amassed due to their use of technical analysis.
James Simons aka the “Quant King” – $11.7 Billion
Ray Dalio – $12.5 Billion
Steven Cohen – $9.3 Billion
Paul Tudor Jones II – $3.6 Billion
If a lot of people apply astrology in their choice of lottery tickets, some of them will be rich as well. It proves nothing about the viability of their methods. |
|
|
|
Technical Analysis is a self fulfilling prophecy. Everyone knows that something goes up or down because of that analysis so they trade accordingly, which then re-affirms that analysis. No. If everyone knew that, then they would all try to front-run the pattern and buy before the pattern completes, thus never making the pattern appear in the first place. Markets are funny like that. If something is true, and everyone knows it's true, then it stops being true. If everyone knows the price of bitcoins usually go down on the weekends, then people will sell before the weekend, thus making the weekend drop stop happening. There is a very big problem with TA. Even if you assume that a TA-pattern that offers profitable predictability exists. As soon as people realizes this pattern it would stop existing. Markets are anti-inductivei already mentioned this in this very thread. this just means that known regularities are unstable over long periods of time. yet, if there is sufficient informational asymmetry (what if only a single market participant even recognizes the pattern?) he might profitably anticipate it many times before his own correcting behavior dissolves the regularity. True. But if you know of a pattern like that, it would be in your best interest not to make it common knowledge. So those who try to spread their patterns are the ones who are most likely wrong. |
|
|
|
There is a very big problem with TA. Even if you assume that a TA-pattern that offers profitable predictability exists. As soon as people realizes this pattern it would stop existing. Markets are anti-inductive |
|
|
|
Time to investigate a resource based economy!
Economics is the science of housekeeping of scarce resources. A non-resource based economy is an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
|
There really should be a site that adds the bids and asks from all sites.
|
|
|
|
|
I currently have a bitcoin-QT client with an encrypted wallet. The password is strong enough that I don't need to worry about anyone stealing my coins even if they get access to my machine. However, with the current price increase I'm becoming a bit paranoid about using the wallet. In fact, I don't feel comfortable to ever decrypt it in fear of having a key-logger on my machine.
This question is mostly for future reference. But what I would like to be able to do is to buy a cheap computer and move my wallet over to it. Then I would like to import it to Armory and use offline transactions only from that point on. Is there a way to do this relatively easy right now?
|
|
|
|
what problem does that solve?
I think a Keynesian would say... Lack of credit expansion? By creating a decentralized analogue to a central bank? I guess I could see it working (though less efficiently than Bitcoin) due to the fact that people will use a fiat currency. Theoretically, as long as people would accept it in exchange for goods and services, then it would work by definition. The target inflation rate would be predictably steady. I suppose if people wanted decentralized fiat, that'd be the way to do it. Not that I think OP is serious, since the whole point of Bitcoin is to be deflationary. This proposed currency would be pretty close to deflationary as well. A fixed sum of new coins means that inflation will decrease every year percentage wise, until it is practically negligible. |
|
|
|
A theory is only valuable if it makes useful predictions before the outcome is known. If the application of the Regression Theorem failed to predict the outcome with regards to Bitcoin then it should be revised or abandoned, just like any other theory.
If you can only get accurate results from the theory by applying it to known outcomes after framing those outcomes to be compatible with the theory it is a useless tautology; pure mental masturbation.
The reason we call a certain period in history "The Enlightenment" is because that's when we learned empiricism trumps theory whenever there's a conflict, which allowed is to invent science.
But the regression theorem is more of an explanation. It doesn't really predict much at all by itself. It's more like the law of supply and demand. The law gives no predictions about the supply or demand of a good by itself, but it does explain what happens when the supply or demand changes. |
|
|
|
|
I've always thought of this for a way to start an alt-coin. The fact that all bitcoin holders automatically becomes alt-coin owners could give it som traction. Or it would just give people some free fraction of bitcoins as they trade their alt-coin for bitcoins as soon as the first exchange opens.
You would have to change the algorithm to find blocks though or you will be vulnerable to a 51% attack from the bitcoin mining pools.
|
|
|
|
The expending of resources to create bitcoin is not relevant to its value. If it was than this would be an example of the labor theory of value.
It doesn't create value, but it does prove value. Pearls aren't valuable because people dive into the ocean to get them. But if you observe someone dive into the ocean to get pearls, that proves he does value pearls. If people spent time and computer resources in order to aquire bitcoins that means they had value. Since people did this before there were any exchange value, we have proof that bitcoin had non-exchange value before its exchange value. Now we can speculate why bitcoins had value even without any exchange, but that is irrelevant to the regression theorem. Value is subjective. Any none-exchange value makes the regression theorem valid. But i really believe mises was correct when he said that all value is derived from the subjective preferences of consumers and not from the labor put into creating something.
Yes people spent real resources to create bitcoins before they were used in exchange, but thats because people were speculating on their future utility as a media of exchange, not because they had any existing utility in that capacity, or any existing utility in any capacity (other than as a speculative vehicle).
I guess you could say they had non exchange value as a speculative vehicle for future exchange value. maybe that satisfies mises criteria but at this point my brain is beginning to tie its self in knots. (im not as smart as mises)
I've had similar thoughts as you here. And while it does seem somewhat circular I don't think it breaks the regression theorem, and it's a plausible theory. But there are other possibilities as well. People often talk about gold's "intrinsic" value, and while gold do have some industrial uses, what people tend to forget is that back when it became money, it really didn't. It was a useless yellow rock that you couldn't do anything with. Basically, its only use was esthetic. Bitcoin could easily fit into that same category. Bitcoin is very esthetic/interesting to a crypto geek, making him want to aquire some even before there were any exchange. This could be bitcoins non-monetary value. Bitcoins intrinsic value could be "geek points". |
|
|
|
i love mises.org but i hate how some of them are almost fundamentalist worshipers of mises who believe he could do no wrong. Well he was wrong in his claim that money can only be created out of a commodity that has existing utility, this is demonstrably the case. Mises was wrong about something, that doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant, get over it, move on.
The problem is that you can't simply be wrong about only one thing when it comes to praxeology. if a praxeological assertion is proven false it means that the praxeological axioms are false as well, since you can't come to false conclusions from true axioms. It's like if the Pythagorean theorem was proven false somehow, then you couldn't just say that mathemathics was wrong about just this one thing, because it would have huge implications for all mathemathical theories. Bitcoin doesn't disprove the regression theorem though. The regression theorem tells us that exchange value can only arise from non-exchange value. That's it. Applied to Bitcoin it gives us two options. Either bitcoins can't can't have any exchange value, or bitcoins were previously valued for some other reason. The first option is obviously absurd and disproven empirically. The second option is completely plausible though. Bitcoin went for a year or so without any exchanges, but people were still expending resources in order to aquire bitcoins. This is proof that bitcoins were valueable even without any exchange value. |
|
|
|
People always raise the example of IT products (even you know you can buy same product with less money in the future, you will still buy it today) and claim there is no problem for a deflative currency to become a medium of exchange
That is the wrong way to look at the problem, since in this example you have no alternative payment method. If you have another inflative currency which lose its value as fast as IT products, you would definitely spend that currency to buy IT products and hold the deflative currency
And this is what will happen, people will spend fiat and hold bitcoin. Even if they ran out of fiat, they could possibly take a loan to spend, since the interest of the loan is much less than the value appreciation of bitcoin, they only need to sell small amount of the coin each year to pay back the loan when exchange price is favorable
But if the mindset of everyone is that bitcoin will only go up, it is the case for retailers and merchants as well. They would rather get paid in bitcoins than in fiat, and could offer better prices that correlates to the expected price rise of bitcoins. The world you are describing is a world where consumers expect Bitcoin to rise, but merchants don't. |
|
|
|
It may get expensive though.
Only if the exchange rate is wrong. If he gets the exchange rate correct (difficult to do in a centralized manner) then I think it should not get expensive. He would be able to sell one for dollars or other currency and then buy the other. He may get a lot of volume. But without actually creating such an exchange, there really is no way to know.In a way, sites like coinabul are an over-the-counter gold/bitcoin exchange. I don't think a gold/bitcoin exchange similar to Mt.Gox currently exists, but I think it would be a good idea to eventually have them in addition to the OTC variety exchanges. Precious metals and bitcoin complement each other quite well, in that all are very difficult to counterfit. Without destroying what it is that makes bitcoin work, exchanges between gold and bitcoin are the only way to link the two currencies. The big problem though is that the "correct" exchange rate is not a constant, it varies. |
|
|
|
They were even kind enough to add a smilie face for us! Well, that's the format for the exchange. e.g., (AAPL :NASDAQ). But MTGOXUSD has no exchange so it is blank (MTGOXUSD  Then clearly it should be (BITCOINUSD :MTGOX) right? The problem is BTC-e and BitStamp have their own books. Gox has the API (for whatever that's worth) for CNBC to get a direct real-time price that the market is moved by. Can't wait til this stuff is scrolling on my TV screen and goes blank when Gox goes offline. They are in no way, shape, or form prepared for this. So really, we just need someone to aggregate the data from all exchanges into an API-like format for places like CNBC to grab. I see a lot of outlets starting to use bitcoincharts.com, but if CNBC is looking I can create an easily to use way to grab the data. Just go ahead and do it. I really doubt CNBC will respond in any way, but if it's availible and made public it's very possible they might just go ahead and use it. It would also make it easier for other news outlets to put up a ticker. If you do it you might want to consider giving away control over it to the Bitcoin Foundation. It would make it seem more official. |
|
|
|
OP: how did you find this? Someone posted it on another forum I follow. |
|
|
|
Does it update correctly? Bitcoinity shows a completely different value.
"(MTGOXUSD)" lol, I blame the alcohol. It seems to be a work in progress then. In a few days it'll probably work as expected. |
|
|
|
|
Does it update correctly? Bitcoinity shows a completely different value.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
