Town Council News
Sphericon has been nominated and voted to the Town Council to replace Paulson and will take part in the Beta Testing phase of the project. Sphericon has shown great enthusiasm and knowledge in game mechanics will be a great addition to the Town Council during this critical time as we prepare for the launch of the next era of the game. Congrats!
Thanks! I'm excited to be involved during this crucial period of the game. I've seen the game and so far I'm excited to see rpietila's vision come to fruition in electronic form. I will be helping to test all the bits of this game and hopefully uncover any bugs that may still be lingering. Can't wait for the release! Congratulations also on this great honor and responsibility! |
|
|
|
Looks like we have a rate rise by the fed on tap this year. Should start to get priced in on monday
Yeah, no. QE4? Yep. I'm expecting both, with unlimited Keynesian hubris on the side. This is a confidence game, so with sufficiently disorganized alternatives, the Fed may be bold and anyway they are not afraid of Bitcoin... at all. Indeed. And for those that are still counting it will be QE5 next. http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Quantitative-Easing.htmQE4 was a re-bailout of the Treasury market for new issuance plus a much needed cash infusion for the primary dealers (banks) QE3 was a re-bailout of the MBS investors (re-bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and banks QE2 was a bailout of the Treasury market, FDIC, plus domestic and foreign banks QE1 was a bailout of the MBS investors (bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and the banks TARP was a bailout of the merchant banks (Citi, Squid etc) plus AIG, car-makers and (why not?) foreign banks the time to have raised rates was during the towering stock market advance of the last few years before what appears to have been the peak on May 19, 2015. now that we have a Dow Theory non-confirmation on the board which looks to confirm the latter half of this year, it would be highly unlikely they raise interest rates into the the teeth of that as that would only accelerate an ongoing plunge. it will be interesting to see how they handle this one but i doubt it will include a raise in rates. Market performance being that mysterious third mandate of the dual mandate. |
|
|
|
Looks like we have a rate rise by the fed on tap this year. Should start to get priced in on monday
Yeah, no. QE4? Yep. I'm expecting both, with unlimited Keynesian hubris on the side. This is a confidence game, so with sufficiently disorganized alternatives, the Fed may be bold and anyway they are not afraid of Bitcoin... at all. |
|
|
|
|
Multiple groups coding to the protocol is likely to be a good development for Bitcoin... Unless it turns into some red vs blue turf battle, which is a big risk with all the xxxJ personalities.
|
|
|
|
1) <snipped as irrelevant>
2) <snipped> I am struggling to imagine what might convince you BCN was started in 2012 but am finding it hard to think of what.
Just curious, but why do you care about convincing anyone of something that cannot be proven? Find some proof, then maybe someone *might* believe you. Otherwise, noone really gives a half a f*ck to be honest anymore, it was a scam, sorry you can't face reality bud.  So it's guilty till proven innocent? Nice (sarcastic). I believe it is up to the prosecution to produce compelling evidence. That's certainly true in a court of law. However, on internet message boards where people are free to base their judgements on whatever the fuck they want, nobody needs to "prove" BCN are lying scumbags to know they're most likely lying scumbags. Besides, BCN is making the claim that they launched in 2012. It's their responsibility to back up their claim, not ours to falsify it. Does that make sense to you? Or will you continue to blather off-topic and make a fool of yourself? Put more simply, BCN is selling a story and looking for buyers. It isn't a court, it is a market. |
|
|
|
How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.
Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached). Why cant they simply be discarded because they are too big? No sig checks. The threat block is not "too big", it gets validated. We are discussing one of the implications of an increased block size, and noticing one of the issues that may be compounded by the prospects of larger blocks being valid. |
|
|
|
The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.
OK. Entrench away. It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen. In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness. As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow. The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this. The success of my entrenchment is not "entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen." The locus of common usage of "shill" has moved from describing a carny's trick, to a paid endorser, and now is heading towards endorsers who are probably not even be paid (secretly or otherwise). EG, I'm called a Monero shill for my advocacy, even though nobody seriously thinks the CEO of Monero pays me. Maybe you should correct them on their improper use of the word? |
|
|
|
how is your life now, after being in a jail, i know that for prisoner is much more difficult to find a job when they get out, it's the same for you, or maybe the entity of your crime is not so bad in your case?
There was no crime, no conviction, just an accusation of a crime. Forfeiture is weird though, In civil forfeiture...the money is guilty, so the money goes to jail... until the cops spend it. John Oliver explains Civil Forfeiture (funny and true): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJksThese laws have corrupted law enforcement in the USA horribly. |
|
|
|
The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.
OK. Entrench away. It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen. In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness. As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow. The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this. |
|
|
|
Hey guys. Wondered if BTC is considered to be a legal currency in US, can I sue somebody that has defrauded me for my coins?
Is it different from state to state?
Yes. In the USA, you can sue someone that has defrauded you even if bitcoin is not currency. Anything of value, and so far every US court has recognized that bitcoin is a thing of value. |
|
|
|
At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...
assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho... Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention. 
A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.
The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition. Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary? Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shillto act as a spokesperson or promoter Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster? What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?  "Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition. Connotation is not definition.Webster's not good enough for ya? Fine... Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball" Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation. QED you got rekt son.  Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals. Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.  You ought not get entrenched on this one. Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson. You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shillhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shillhttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.htmlhttp://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.) You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition. |
|
|
|
Yikes!
-$36 and sub $1100. That's not good.
Isn't 960ish the historically-required 50% retracement from the ATH of USD$1923? I might buy at that price. |
|
|
|
Gold price is more about the dollar values than much else (or whatever it is that you are trading away to get gold). Energy is the same way, mostly. If dollar goes up forever, gold never will. |
|
|
|
About western union, do not forget that they started as a telegraphic company.
They evolved one time, and can probably do it again.
It would be very easy for them to add a "bitcoin transfer" offer
I've been proposing this to them for years. They have all the licensing they would need, they could buy an exchange or several with cash on hand, especially one in a jurisdiction that is cracking down on licensing stuff. They could get some of those very cheaply. As a company it is afraid to eat its own children, but if they don't, someone else will. It is just a matter of time and time is not on WU's side. |
|
|
|
|
The Monero solution to the block size limit issue was also quite nice. It seems robust enough to manage any size growth needed forever.
It accomplishes this by using pooling of rewards to future blocks, miners can expand the block size by paying a little forward to a pool that rewards future miners.
It is the sort of thing that is most easily done at inception, not as easy to add later.
|
|
|
|
Have you sold any Bitcoins to Greeks through local Bitcoins yet? They were selling for way above the market rate last week but I haven't heard how much they are selling for since the Grexit fears subsided. Somebody from Greece quoted a very high figure last week and I'm interested in hearing if it's still the same.
This looks like a bargain for spending some bitcoin in Greece. I wonder if they will take bitcoin? http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/isle-of-gaia Name: Isle of Gaia Region: Greece, Europe Location: Echinades Group, Ionian Sea Development: Partially Developed Title: Freehold Type: Private Island Price: USD 4,637,438 convert Status: For Sale Size: 43.00 Acres / 17.40 HA |
|
|
|
|
Someone sold 5K BTC-E coins at market.
Either desperate, or an expensive miss-click. oops!
|
|
|
|
|
I like that the discussion here has shifted from "lets shut down their business" to "how can we do a better business than WU does".
Extinguishing WU isn't something that we will do, it's something that WU will do... by not taking advantage of what Bitcoin offers. At any moment that can change.
They have money service licenses everywhere they are needed, and points of presence globally. If they wake up, they could be one heck of a Bitcoin business.
Sure, WU has been gouging the great quantity of poor-but-loyal-to-remote-family hard working people everywhere for generations. The cash from such gouging can buy up a bunch of existing Bitcoin businesses to ramp up fast and gain some talent.
Full disclosure: I'm short WU stock (until they seem ready to pivot to Bitcoin).
|
|
|
|
I see your confusion. You've confused propagation with verification.
Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.
Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify. Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.
If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning. Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).
does your above argument depend on the existence of the relay network or not? The debate might be helped with a graphic of network topology types. Bitcoin is the bottom right "irregular" type, except far larger and messier than the simple example here. This makes it infinitely more robust than all the other types. Call that Satoshi genius or simply an emergent property of decentralization or both.  Let's say that a "rogue" block gets mined by a node and sent to its peers. For illustration this might be too big for most bandwidth e.g. 100MB (leaving aside the message size limits) or a deviously constructed bloated tx block of 5MB which takes 3 hours to validate. If this rogue block can't be efficiently handled then it borks the node's immediate peers for a period of time. However, the rest of the network continues in a viable state. If the block is finally processed the invs to the next peers get ignored because the chain has moved on and the rogue block orphaned. We immediately see that a fully-connected network has a far higher risk of systemic failure because a rogue block could seize up all nodes simultaneously, yet an irregular (mesh or multi-hop) network will be largely unaffected. Each node having just a dozen connections means that the other 6000 nodes keep on tracking oblivious to the rogue block. This is a reason why "5 nodes worldwide" is useless, and thousands are best. This design feature is compromised if nodes forward blocks without validation, or if a central block transmission method exists which makes the mining topology more like a bus or star. That's one reason why I really like IBLT as a block propagation efficiency method: it retains the inherent robustness of an irregular topology when all nodes participate in being able to encode (mine) and decode (read, verify). Agree on the resiliency of topology, but consider... This threat is not from a bandwidth attack with a big block, for it to work, the block size of the "rogue" has to be acceptable, the transactions valid. Implementation of IBLT helps only if this rogue is not done intentionally by a miner (and not broadcasting the long-validation-time transactions until included in the winning block). It gets interesting when the verification takes longer than the propagation which as we've seen can be done with a high volume of outputs and inputs, and possibly more so by ordering inputs/outputs within the TXs and block to avoid validation and processing shortcuts. Consider further that this is merely a single edge case threat. When it comes to corner cases (multiple edge cases), you can get other failure conditions in more rare circumstances. Any hard fork presents at least one additional edge case. The relay network topology may matter in picking the degree of complexity to have the desired effect, (even a 25 second validation gives about a 5% head start on the 10 minutes, which may be enough to increase profit above the competition). The relay network topology can also be utilized by picking your peers to make the method more likely to succeed. I'm a fan of increasing the transaction rate, but I'm more interested in the Bitcoin Experiment being successful in the long run. I think we'll get there, but don't be so impatient as to stumble over the things to do first. |
|
|
|
|
I see your confusion. You've confused propagation with verification.
Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.
Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify. Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.
If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning. Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
