|
Martingale distributes wins/losses differently. You have more wins for smaller amounts, and few losses for huge amounts. That literally about all it does.
|
|
|
|
|
People need to be aware of all the ridiculousness that is MSB laws. It is amazing what sort of businesses are considered felonies in America's brand of capitalism.
|
|
|
|
So, every now and then I see a post about the beauty of a decentralized exchange. Well here's the thing. You can't get USD on a Decentralized Exchange, adding new coins to trade will always be a headache, and since there won't be any censorship, scamming with new, random, 2 day old altcoins will be abundant, among other things
Decentralized Exchanges sound good in theory, but in practice it just isn't plausible.
Why would 2 day altcoins be added to a DEX if they are "always a headache" ? |
|
|
|
|
Interesting project, we need more of this sort of blockchain application and less currency based apps.
|
|
|
|
|
Meh we have to move to decentralized exchanges. No one will ever be able to figure out what happened for sure...
|
|
|
|
screenshot painted by ripple fan  Yah but he put Bitshares going up on same trajectory as NXT which is magnitudes more in relative growth. Basically saying NXT and Bitshares are the 2 things to invest in. |
|
|
|
What is the difference between a currency and a DAC?
I can only guess that New Economy Movement transformed into a more sophisticated phenomenon than just a currency. This wouldn't be surprising taking into account skills and enthusiasm of its developers. What is the difference? Ha, just keep an eye on NEM and you'll get it. I'm impressed come-from-beyond. You seem pretty cool for a NXT guy.  NEM is LOL but I was once a true believer. The people behind the curtains on that one are impressive. The best of luck to thim. |
|
|
|
|
Louie Theroux's stuff on American culture was amusing.
For wildlife stuff I loved Alby Mangels. A quite legitimate explorer without a crew following him around. Done in late 70's/early 80's. He caught a lot of stuff on color film that might no longer exist. There was an episode where he revisited a village many years later and the missionary's had come through and everyone wore old thrown out western clothing and became beggars.
|
|
|
|
From an average joe's point of view, something like Nubits is safer and could be reliable. I personally think that Nubits and Nu system has to prove that it can work. I have no doubts about the NU system but its needs to prove to everyone it can be pegged to the dollar 1:1 reliably. Once the Nu system reputation has been established, this does have value to the average person. I could see NuBits used as a mainstream currency like the dollar/euro, but replace Bitcoin, no. However on the flipside, I can't see Bitcoin being adopted as a mainstream currency because of the volatility involved.
Nubits will be trusted when they show their reserves. I've heard they claim no counter-party risk. I've never seen anyone explain how that could be possibly be true, so they're already lying and can not be trusted. |
|
|
|
|
After reading this thread there are 3 accounts with 70 activity exactly. This means they were created within 2 weeks of each other and used to slam the site with screaming posts with no facts. If you notice all 3 accounts attack BitShares by just random bullshit.
So... are these real people...
or are they FUD spreading shills from a competing entity who realizes a true pegged coin solution could be huge ?
One of the largest reasons for people to not want to buy into BTC these days is the volatility.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that LTC is not ASIC resistant and barely any sort of improvement over BTC. The sharper people will continue to get out while the price steadily goes down. Leaving a bunch of true believing bag holders in the end. I ask though, what makes anyone think LTC will break away?
Bitshares has 10 second block confirms which blows away LTC. The dilution they added has put them in a spot to continue improvement on their blockchain.
Maidsafe will be a new anti-censorship internet.
Ethereum will bring about smart contracts.
Do yourself a favor and divest from LTC into BitShares, MaidSafe, or Ethereum if possible.
|
|
|
|
First to Market is Usually Not Best in Market
There is a very common misconception in the innovation world that being first to market translate to being best in market. However there seems to be a much more decisive factor to being best in market and that is best-fit-implementation.
You are conflating companies/sites/applications with protocols, with the latter benefiting greatly from being first to market with a large userbase. Sites and applications are just as likely to benefit from being first with large userbase as a protocol. LOL. |
|
|
|
agreed 99% of Tx's dont really require confirms..
but for all of those that do need confirms.. they cry when they wait over 10 minutes.. but i have never ever seen them post when their TX's have taken them just a couple minutes to confirm due to fast hashing
\ It isn't fast hashing, it is just luck. I've had to sit around a BTC ATM machine an extra 30 minutes because hashes were coming through that were longer than 10 minutes. not really luck.. in short if i hashed 1 number a minute and wanted an average 10 minute hash time.. each hash would be a number between 0 and 20.. 10 times it would average below 10 minutes.. 10 times it would average over 10 minutes.. but on average.. you will get a 10 minute hashtime when repeated the process a few thousand times.. its not lucky that a block is found in 1 minute or unlucky if it too 19 minutes.. its all based on maths, not luck. so its just a standard feature of randomness that some take alot of time some take very little time. but i do laugh that you complain about 30 minutes, whilst a western union takes much longer. and then for instance trying to get paypal or apple pay to transfer money to your bank and then to a FIAT ATM... even longer.. Franky.. why have I never forgotten your account ? Oh I am too lazy. Hitting a hash is analogous to a lottery where every hash is an entry. It is luck as much as averages as much as math. When I'm expecting the 6 confirms to take an hour and they take 1.5 hours, I got unlucky. I don't use Western Union as an ATM. I have received payments from WU and when I show up it doesn't take over an hour. Oddly the ATM fixed it by having your xfer go to an account before you show up but their solution has me leaving some random amount under $20 USD in the account that didn't fit their fiat dispersal denominations. Typical BTC solution ! SMH |
|
|
|
Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good. It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819^ Thank you! That is a great post by satoshi that is saying about the exact same thing! I should go read all his posts. There is some wisdom there! Other people argue differently in that same thread. Spitting out 2 spends from the same time is easily done. It can work enough to be a valid attack. That is why everyone insists on at least a confirmation for transactions of any significance. The problem is that for people are fascinated by the pure technical aspect of being able to spend digital money, this wait time causes a severe problem. The answer of the koolaid drinkers is not better technology, it is layering on kludges to fix the problem. Yes, but if two simultaneous spends get detected then both transactions can be cancelled. And if one of the transactions was first, even if only by seconds, then it will propagate a majority of the network more quickly (exponentially) and be accepted by miners while the second one is rejected. This is as satoshi explains in his post (see link in OP). This would be coded by payment processors to make the threat of double spends a non-factor. satoshi explains this and it makes sense if you think about how it could be implemented. It helps if you can think like a programmer to imagine how this would be implemented in a workable fashion and all its ramifications. I assume a cancelled transaction does not meant funds are lost, just sent back. This means the cost of the attack is too close to 0. There are reasons people who think like programmers and want funds fungible ASAP still rely on confirmations. Bitshares fixes this and the scalability factor at the expense of managed centralization. This centralization is in fact less than the current bitcoin centralization which centers around a handful of mining pools. Effectively meaning that the BTC network is controlled by as many people as I can count on one hand. |
|
|
|
Today I would like to introduce the latest advancement in block chain technology: a graph database on a block chain.
There isn't anything technically wrong with your post. But with the above sentence you are just preying on the lack of education in the database technology. In particular this is just a rehash of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_model databases that were unsuccessfully standardized under CODASYL in 1968 (and over a few years later). I blame it on C.J.Date's Introduction to Database Management Systems that in the fifth(?) edition lost the entire sections about the Hierarchical Model and the Network Model and greatly expanded the Relational Model section. C.J.Date was then employed by the IBM's DB2 group if I'm not mistaken. Anyone can still ask a librarian to borrow e.g. Third Edition and have a nice trip to the past where the NoSQL's roamed the Earth together with the other mainframe dinosaurs. You sir should work for Bitshares. They pay on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
agreed 99% of Tx's dont really require confirms..
but for all of those that do need confirms.. they cry when they wait over 10 minutes.. but i have never ever seen them post when their TX's have taken them just a couple minutes to confirm due to fast hashing
\ It isn't fast hashing, it is just luck. I've had to sit around a BTC ATM machine an extra 30 minutes because hashes were coming through that were longer than 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good. It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819^ Thank you! That is a great post by satoshi that is saying about the exact same thing! I should go read all his posts. There is some wisdom there! Other people argue differently in that same thread. Spitting out 2 spends from the same time is easily done. It can work enough to be a valid attack. That is why everyone insists on at least a confirmation for transactions of any significance. The problem is that for people are fascinated by the pure technical aspect of being able to spend digital money, this wait time causes a severe problem. The answer of the koolaid drinkers is not better technology, it is layering on kludges to fix the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it quite simple to double spend if no one waits for 1 confirmation? I don't know how the double spends work but it seems like it would be quite easy to pull off double spends once people allow spending of funds with not even a confirmation.
I've done BTC transactions and waiting 6 confirms sux. I go use Bitshares and 10 seconds unless network isn't healthy but worst case is always far far faster than BTC.
In fact the reason I liked BTC to begin with turned out to not even be true due to these limitations of the block times and POW.
|
|
|
|
This is quite interesting. Are there any wallets who compete on the amount of functionality that Bitshares has ? |
|
|
|
I thought people gave up on the Ripple idea? The Bitshare bullshit is taking a difficult to understand concept, for the general public, and turning it into an impossible to understand concept. Why won't developers and designers learn when it's time to stop and just promote. Let Bitcoin become fully entrenched before you mindfuck the public with yet another complicated system. So when I have tokens do I have coins and shares or do I need coins to get shares and tokens or shares of the tokens of coins? Oy vey!
If you've looked at coinmarketcap lately you see the Ripple idea has very much not been given up on, but that's not the topic of the video. It's about user issued assets rather than IOUs. The complexity isn't a problem because the existing financial system is extremely complex and people don't care. As long as it works the general public don't need to understand it. Developers + designers should not stop innovating. Bitcoin is opening up a world of opportunities. The best discoveries lead to more discoveries, just like the best questions lead to more questions. It's growth of the crypto industry. Please lets keep this on topic of what could be done with blockchain based UIAs (user issued assets). Ok, Bitcoin is seen as too complex and difficult to use for most people I know. Banks are closing individual accounts if they are used for Bitcoins. Businesses are only accepting btc if BitPay converts them to dollars immediately. If not for individuals, do you expect only banks, finance companies and businesses to use UIAs when they won't even accept Bitcoin or hold it for long? UIAs are a great idea who's time hasn't arrived yet. Bitcoin adoption should come first. I never said stop developing new ideas, just learn to pace them more effectively. Ever heard of Microsoft Bob? Not every idea under development is golden. I think a few things are confused here: There is complexity of the technology for one and a user friendly way of making use of the technology. Banks are closing individual accounts if they are used for Bitcoins. That is for regulatory reasons not due to the complexity of technology. If not for individuals, do you expect only banks, finance companies and businesses to use UIAs when they won't even accept Bitcoin or hold it for long? You have to distinguish issuance and usage. Issuance is mainly done by institutions (but also by companies or individuals), usage would be mainly covered by individuals (but also inst. and companies). UIAs are a great idea who's time hasn't arrived yet. Bitcoin adoption should come first. I never said stop developing new ideas, just learn to pace them more effectively. Agree! Timing is crucial. But should innovation by holden back and who really knows when the time has come? Also the bitshares stuff will take another year or half a year maybe to be as powerful as it can be. So maybe the timing is right Overall I do not think Bitshares is that complicated, they just sucked at simple communication. Bitshares.tv and https://bytemaster.github.io/ are trying to change that. Very well said. Question authority and more effectively, question those who question authority ! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
