http://www.afr.com/p/national/hackers_blamed_for_bitcoin_plunge_xaOWnfSuMJJiCcYrt6adSJBitcoin, a digital currency, fell from a peak of over $US265 to under $US105, in what some say was an attack by hackers looking to manipulate the currency.
It recovered to $US180 by Thursday afternoon. Confidence in the safety of the fledgling unit had been shaken, but some Australian businesses still accept bitcoin in exchange for their products.
It only has value if people agree it does, said CommSec chief economist Craig James. “In many respects bitcoins have much in common with gold,” he said in a recent note to clients.
A bitcoin valued at $US180 would have seemed extremely high not long ago; on January 1, 2013, it was just $US13.
|
|
|
Proudhorn says: He's right, you know, because the only resource consumed by government currency is paper. This is sadly misinformed. The resources consumed by poorly managed govt. paper currency (which they all inevitably are since humans are fallible) also encompasses all the waste associated with the gross mis-allocation of capital and resources that come about from centrally-planned financing ... it is not just mere few bits of coloured paper expended but the complete screw up of the economic system that needs to be accounted for ... count that up and get back to us. Edit: Patiently waiting for krugman's follow up post titled "Adam Smith Hates Federal Reserve Banking" This is the key point. It is not the electricity cost. (or gas, or whatever) that is significant. It is the miss-allocated resources, from the manipulation of the monetary supply. This is the huge cost to society.
|
|
|
I was quoted in it. It was in the print edition as-well, however a slightly shorted version.
|
|
|
If bitcoin starts eating the world, it is people like Felix that will demand that the government stops it.
|
|
|
It may be better to write a new gui that replaces the bitcoin-QT client. Since Windows 8 (and windows phone supports C++ now.
|
|
|
you all sound like a bunch of catty bitches
wow lumos!
|
|
|
I don't see why we don't just discuss Bitcoin without getting personal...
Welcome to Bitcointalk.
|
|
|
with the kitty so large, I think that it would be a good service to make it required that the code is released, with an open-source friendly licence.
|
|
|
what version of mutibit do you have, the wallet is stored in standard places. So you should be able to find it still. If you find you wallet, you should be able to recover it with https://blockchain.info/wallet/
|
|
|
I've updated to version 0.88.k
|
|
|
Would be a really dumb bet since you can get 9:1 just by buying btc itself
500/70 ~= 7/1
|
|
|
Sorry about that. Where should articles that have an impact on the future of Bitcoin go?
In the General or the Politics forums.
|
|
|
0.8 wasn't backwards compatible, but 0.7 had the bug that caused the split. I'm totally with Mike Hearn, although I don't see how this requires the hard fork any earlier. It will require a soft fork very soon though, as we want to get back to the 1MB limit, and that can only be done with 0.8.
Completely wrong. 0.8 had the bug, since it didn't imperilment the protocol as defined by the 0.7 clients. The fact that the limitation in the 0.7 clients was unknown and undocumented is besides the point. The absolute thing that 0.8 needs to do is not allow blocks that are considered invalid under 0.7 clients. (no-matter how, or why they are considered invalid). This is was an "Undocumented regression of the 0.8 client" nothing more, nothing less. The fact that it comes about from a "undocumented limitation of the 0.7 (and before) clients" is besides the point.
|
|
|
in-fact the amount of energy required is quite a calculable problem. The problem lies in the answer, where the energy is greater than all the energy in the universe.
|
|
|
He is also saying his fork will continue to exist regardless. That's fine, he can use his inconsequential fork as long as he has another node to connect to (even if it is his own). He can also use Open Transactions he is selling as a solution all he likes too.
Except it isn't just me, there are hundreds of users (and owners of bitcoin) like me, who signed on to a system that we thought would have LOWER relative costs to verify in the future. That one day every, even the cheapest computer, could become a full-node. The thing is that these people don't post on the forums about this change. Because they are not arguing FOR a change. They are quite happy with bitcoin is atm. They don't even need to be convinced about the change. Their Bitcoin; the current Bitcoin; the real Bitcoin. Will continue to work just fine.
|
|
|
|