|
Well I was just thinking how long that data will stay in tact without the hard drive being powered on. The magnetism will fail over time, and the data will be lost forever. The longevity of the data stored on any drive depends on the conditions where it is stored and for how long. For hard drives, there are three main factors: magnetic field breakdown, environmental conditions, and mechanical failure.
One thing not considered is the servo tracks and markings. These are written one time at the factory and never again (on modern disks). No amount of re-writes by the user or so-called low-level formatting freshens these. Once they fade, they fade!
So in conclusion, Bye Bye bitcoins ^wave^
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Satoshi I wanted to talk with you
- snip -
In my opinion, Satoshi is probably dead. If I'm right, then he's going to have a VERY difficult time answering your questions. Post your questions publicly. It is possible that Mr. Nakamoto has already answered them and you just don't know it. If he has, then perhaps we can point you posts of his from the past that answer your questions. How did you know satoshi is dead.. like other said i think satoshi is hiding or he was just watching with us.. You a point it is better to give as publicity so that maybe we can answer what he want to ask.. or maybe before it was already answered.. I am with him on this, because there are a lot of people who think Hal Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto. He also was an early bitcoin user and received the first bitcoin transaction from bitcoin's creator Satoshi Nakamoto. Many believe that he send it to himself. ^smile^ Hal Finney died in Phoenix August 28, 2014 and was cryopreserved by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation. ^weird^ |
|
|
|
|
Yea, and the scary thing is, it happened in a year with a Bad luck number, 2013 ^Ooooooooo^ We can pull any number out of our ass, and make it something important, as I just shown in this last statement. We look at clouds and we see sheep, and we look at a photo of the Twin Towers burning and in the smoke we see the face of a devil.
We have a wild, conspiratorial streak in us. ^smile^
|
|
|
|
Yeah.. this guy is intelligent. Although the volatility in the Bitcoin exchange rates are well known, nothing can beat the instability of the Zimbabwean Dollar (I think now they have withdrawn the currency). That said, I don't know how he is going to spend his coins. Are there any shops in Zimbabwe which accepts Bitcoin? If there are none, then he may be forced to travel to South Africa to spend his coins.
The problem is, South Africa also do not have loads of merchants accepting Bitcoin. I have friends there and they are saying it is nearly non-existent in that country. Apart from a few online Art & craft specialty Bitcoin items, it has nearly no support. I Googled it, and I only found some news that a online retailer called TakeAlot is accepting Bitcoin. I visited the site, but you have to sign up with a 3rd party payment processor to be able to buy stuff at that site and it seems like you have to be a retailer to do that. I wanted to buy some gifts for them, and had it delivered locally. ^hmmmm^ |
|
|
|
|
I am not so worried about the creation of the cold storage, than I am worried when you sweep that bitcoins from cold storage to some online wallet. The hackers have used several methods to hijack these actions to get to those bitcoins. Make sure when you copy and paste Bitcoin addresses, because they have Malware that replace your Bitcoin address with their Bitcoin address.
I have swapped to hardware wallets for every day use, and I am not using online Apps or online wallets anymore. It is just too risky. ^hmmmm^
|
|
|
|
In the next 100 years, do you think Governments will create their own cryptocurrency or digital currency that will replace fiat currency, i.e. coins, paper money, the paper dollar, etc.?
If it does happen, will it be like bitcoin or will it still represent gold like how today's money works?
Today's money does not represent gold, and it has not done so in many years. You can read more about that in this article : http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/the-morons-guide-to-money-what-gives-money-its-value-and-what-is-the-gold-standard/I hope this never happens, because governments will then have full control over people's money, and you will have zero anonymity. Cash offer you some degree of anonymity now, and if you sacrifice that privilege for a system where all transactions can be followed and traced, then you will have no financial privacy. They will know when you buy Tampons at your local store and how much you spend on booze per month and if they want to, they can block every thing. |
|
|
|
Well, it could be that they entered the R3 consortium because they did not want to be left out of the new Blockchain hype that was pitched to them, and when they realized that they could do this on their own, they then just pulled their support or they are planning to partner up with someone else. They could also have realized that there are many other options on the table, and that private permissioned ledgers are not the way of the future. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
Leaving aside the fact that cherry-picking some random rich dude and attributing an entire movement to that person is ludicrous... You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling and Segwit and pro a fork." This says more about you than it does of Ver. And again, we're not for "blocking scaling and SegWit"*. We BU-ers are for implementing scaling through the emergent consensus of the entire network having control over maxblocksize.
Just implement Segwit and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit). No. You (core, et al) just implement emergent maxblocksize and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit). Which by all accounts is the mainstream. We're just fighting for what we believe is the most beneficial approach and best path forward to a more capable Bitcoin, maximizing value to the largest possible set of users.
Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though. Now see, that is what is known as an opinion. Dogma really. Spare me the 'holier than thou' shit. I do not agree. There was a time when the prevailing attitude within Bitcoin was that our money was to be free of arbitrary limitations imposed by others. Further, it is not a technical limit. There is some limit that technology imposes, but it sure-the-hell-ain't 1MB (good thing, as The SegWit Omnibus Changeset implements a sliding scale for maxblocksize that can be as large as 4MB). No. What we have here is a centrally-imposed limit within the code. Indeed, this limit was not put in place to begin with to deal with a technological problem, and its realtion to any underlying technological limit is tenuous at best. Roger Ver is not some random rich guy, he is the self proclaimed Bitcoin Jesus and lately the Bitcoin Judas. He has dumped loads of money into a alternative forum, that are being used to spread propaganda for whatever flavor of Bitcoin or Alt coin he wants to hype. < Usually something that are not supported by the Blockstream guys > He has found a niche market for the people with a revolutionary mindset. < The ones who wants to piss in the wind > It started with < fabricated censorship > and now it is all about money. < Gambling etc.. > |
|
|
|
|
The volatility is only an issue when you have to deal with banks and the delays being caused when transfers are between different banking groups. I had cases where I sold Bitcoin on a exchange and it took 3 days for them to transfer the money from their bank account to mine.
So you cannot capitalize on trading in such an environment, if you have to wait on banks. They are useless and I cannot wait to get rid of them. If I had the choice, I would do everything in Bitcoin now.
|
|
|
|
|
The outcome will be predictable, because most of them will split the risk and invest in both Bitcoin and Ethereum. Nobody knows at this stage, which of the two technologies will succeed. If I had to take a bet, I would stack my bet on Bitcoin pulling it through based on adoption and a better security track record.
I would not invest in Ethereum, because it forking hard. ^smile^
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a commodity in the US, if they want to tax every transaction, they will have to re-define Bitcoin as a currency. You have to report Capital Gains and extra income on your tax return, so you are already paying taxes or should I say, should be paying taxes on Bitcoin.
If you not doing that, you might end up with huge penalties and also some jail time for tax evasion.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting concept, but the permissions will chase people away. The reasons given, < Ad income > should not compromise the security of the mobile users. I would have a separate site or a forum, that generates the Ad income and have that separate of the game.
Then you can re-direct people to this site for Leaderboard information and general communication to generate traffic for Ad income. If the permissions chase people away, then the Ad income will be low and your game will not go viral. There should be no barrier to entry for the game and external Ad income from other sources.
You can also introduce Player vs Player matches, where people bet on the outcome and you take a percentage of the bets being played per game to fund the faucet. ^smile^
|
|
|
|
I have always wondered if a service could not be created to automate the troubleshooting of problems like this? A group of miners and/or a pool could offer this service as a extra income. They should create a website, where they advertise this service.
A lot of newbies and old timers makes mistakes and if they are not aware of the people rectifying these mistakes, then they are going to get frustrated with this technology. Let's create a single portal for problem solving of tx mistakes like these.
Call them the <TXBusters> ^smile^
check out the many BIPs that have been created so far, they have all been trying to avoid making a centralized thing like what you suggest. examples: - simply resend the transaction with higher fee - Child Pays for Parent (CPFP) - Transaction replacement (RBF) all these makes it automatic, so you only need a bitcoin wallet to make the transaction and send. some of these are not implemented my miners though! (like CPFP) Ok, I might have used the wrong word, "automation" in that context. This should not be part of Bitcoin, but rather a value added services, provided by independent people. Like badbitcoin where scams are reported in one place and people have a one-stop solution to their problem. So when we see this, " My tx is not confirmed for 20 hours, because I send too little fees " We can simply direct them to a centralized service to resolve this matter. Not everyone have the skill set to do this, so they need a little help. This is not a permanent solution, but it adds a temporary solution to the problems being experienced now. In theory, if SegWit & LN is accepted, this might not be a problem anymore, but we are still far away from that and the users have these problems now. |
|
|
|
I always look for motive,
So what is your motive, that makes you unable to do simple math?  I do not need a motive, I use Bitcoin daily without any problems and I have been doing that for years. I admit that it might have problems in the future, if mainstream adoption happens, but for now I have no problems. The propaganda to shill for Alt coins & Fiat is a sickness on this forum, and it needs to be addressed. When your Alt coin reach Bitcoin's size, {Billions of dollars of other people's money} you might also feel the pressure not to implement stuff on the fly, but to check and to triple check every little thing. Bitcoin's security is more important than the scaling needs, that are not a issue now. It might be for the future. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
kiklo, please explain how increasing the block size or speeding block times will help bitcoin compete with things like Apple Pay, the VISA network and so on.
Keep in mind the current capacity of bitcoin is 3-7 TX/sec. The competition is on the order of thousands of times higher capacity. Please explain your brilliant solution using a larger block size or faster blocks (and how you will handle orphans, etc.) or any combination thereof.
In fact, since you are such a genius, please start your own altcoin with these solutions to show us poor dumb folks how it is done.
1st off it will never be able to complete with Visa on a Transaction basis head on, However, using OffChain Transactions , it could compete , but the transactions would have to between large companies only as individual transactions are too many for it to ever handle. A company would have to process the payments internally and only use the blockchain when it needed to be paid out of their internal network, this way to keep the majority of the transactions off of the blockchain. Problem is BTC is unable to handle it's current load , so it would have to be increased before the offchain would just overload it. If you are another one that can not understand 2 blocks in 10 minutes have twice the capacity as 1, you should check your self into rehab too. Don't have to start my own coin, I joined with a group that already started one.
ZEIT with a 30 second blockspeed has 20X the transactions capacity of Bitcrap.
I know to you BTC religious fanatics , that makes no difference, but when people with reasoning skills read it , they will understand and hopefully avoid the train wreck bitcrap is becoming. FYI: If you are partial to Chinese controlled coins like BTC, go with LTC with a 2½ minute blockspeed it has 5X the transaction capacity of BTC. I always look for motive, when I see people attacking Bitcoin or the developers and your motive is as a clear as daylight. You do not need to hype up ZEIT and badmouth Bitcoin. If ZEIT is better than Bitcoin, people would dump Bitcoin and use it on their own. ^smile^ As I said, SegWit & LN might not be the ideal solution, but it will help. It also fixes other issues like Malleability and also removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer and also improved security for multisig via P2SH. In the end, nothing has been decided yet, so we might be bumping chests for nothing. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
|
I have always wondered if a service could not be created to automate the troubleshooting of problems like this? A group of miners and/or a pool could offer this service as a extra income. They should create a website, where they advertise this service.
A lot of newbies and old timers makes mistakes and if they are not aware of the people rectifying these mistakes, then they are going to get frustrated with this technology. Let's create a single portal for problem solving of tx mistakes like these.
Call them the <TXBusters> ^smile^
|
|
|
|
Decrease the BlockSpeed or increase the Blocksize, both simple solutions that would fix the transaction issue overnight , that are being blocked by the greedy and the stupid in charge of BTC.
This is simply nonsense/propaganda - increasing the block size (or reducing the block speed) simply doesn't scale and anyone trying to say it does is either purposely misleading you or doesn't understand just what would be involved in scaling (anything much more than say ten times what can be handled now). Unfortunately @OP this issue has mostly become about politics rather than practical solutions to the Bitcoin network. and you are simply stupid, a Block only can contain a certain number of Transactions, increase the # of blocks in a given time frame and you increase your transaction capacity. That is why BTC is so much in the shitter, you can't even understand the above comment would fix the issue. The political response was yours, Mr BTC Religious Fanatic. How in the world can you be a lead developer of anything and not understand simple math, are you on Drugs? Go to rehab and get yourself together Ian. FYI: http://www.coindesk.com/lower-bitcoin-block-time-scale/The logic is simple: More blocks mean more transactions. You really want to attack one of the most knowledgeable users on this forum? CIYAM will run circles around you, in a battle to see who knows the most about Bitcoin. While you busy, also explain to us how you going to handle the risks inherit to increased Block sizes, while you on the roll. SegWit & LN is not the ideal solution, but it is better than a simple block size upgrade. |
|
|
|
|
Are you going to number the boards and show a archived list of all boards that were played? I would think that these boards will come and go much faster, once this game become more popular and people would be curious to see where the jackpot blocks were placed.
They can also see the random placement of these jackpot blocks, to verify the fairness of the placement. If the blocks is shifted, while people are playing, people can determine that, by placing planned moves to determine the randomness.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would a private ledger based on the Blockchain technology be more efficient and cost effective than Bitcoin? Bitcoin is more secure and it has a established global user base. The main focus of these private ledgers are to decrease the cost of transfers between banks. < not paying Swift > and to decentralize their security.
Bitcoin can already do both of these, and it has a proven track record. You did not need to dump Billions of dollars into research and development, because Bitcoin already had all the boxes ticked.
The only thing they did not have with Bitcoin was full control. This is the main reason why they developed their own technology. ^hmmmm^
|
|
|
|
Why does everyone just stand around doing nothing while nullc / Blockstream / GMax takes over Bitcoin?
Did people say this when Gavin was in control and the Lead developer? People want their bread buttered on both sides. They complain that Bitcoin cannot scale to accommodate for mainstream adoption, and when someone develop something to address that, then they still complain about them. SegWit and LN is probably not the best option, but it is better than nothing. Increasing the Block size to help with the scaling problem, will only increase the possibility that we will have a spam fest and more attacks on Bitcoin. So what is your solution to the problem? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
