That would be awesome.
Yes, Ben Bernanke, be our guest. |
|
|
|
|
I want to import an old wallet.dat into a full client. How do I do this?
|
|
|
|
I think the reason most people don't believe that Anarchy can work is that they don't understand the true nature of anarchism. It isn't spraypainting A's on buildings and acting a fool, as is shown in any news report about anarchists. I myself feel that any group of true friends in any city, town, state has the ability to function as an anarchist societal model. But that's just my two pennies.
There is more to it than that, as there have been many other names for the same basic idea. None of them seem to ever be well received regardless of the common preception of the terms used. |
|
|
|
Before it was abolished, nobody knew how the cotton would get picked without slave labor. After they stopped using humans as property somebody figured it out.
Technically, Eli Whitney had it figured out well before that... |
|
|
|
Presently it looks like there will be three global blockchains: Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Novacoin. Absent any marked improvement over the offerings of those 3 coins nothing else will gain that level of acceptance. So we will see a "lock in" effect to market share, but this will include more than Bitcoin.
I've never even heard of Novacoin, and a search for that term yielded only this very post. What is it? EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. A PoW and PoS hybrid that uses Scrypt in the PoW part, presumedly to made GPU/ASIC mining impossible. I've seen no method of PoS that I personally couldn't really monkey with, so I'm biased against any such thing from the start. I don't think it has legs. |
|
|
|
http://mises.org/daily/1121There are. Here is one that lasted for longer than the United States has been an independent country, before they had their first civil war.
|
|
|
|
So did BetaMax. Reality didn't care what their opinion was either. WTF man? BetaMax was the bomb!  Sure, but it wasn't first to market, VHS was. VHS won. Betamax wasn't better enough for the early adopters to switch, due to the network effect. Bitcoin has the first to market advantage, and the potential ability to annex any real improvements that an alt-chain can produce anyway. If the 2 minute interval that LTC uses really offers a market advantage, Bitcoin can steal that advantage. There are only a few things about the way the network actually works that can't be messed with, including the 21 M BTC limit. |
|
|
|
The space colonies will probably be sufficiently isolated by lag to develop a parallel network which is on par. Well, that's probably true. The lunies could still use Bitcoin without trouble, but Mars pretty much would have to start their own blockchain. |
|
|
|
So did BetaMax. Reality didn't care what their opinion was either. |
|
|
|
I didn't wake up to a $10 dollar increase in price. Clearly, the market is crashing.
Thank goodness! This bubble was getting out of hand. |
|
|
|
Before very long though, I think the rules should be changed to address the price stability issue.
There ought to be an automated mechanism for doing this..
Anyone have any good ideas on this?
See thread: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9923.0It's about creating a currency backed by bitcoins. The bitcoins then become similar to gold in currencies backed by gold. The new currency will have great price stability in the sense of being resilient against deflation and inflation. That is exactly what my gut feeling tells me about Bitcoin. It will be adopted by governments worldwide to back their currencies—and actually, I even go further speculating that the first government who decide to do that, will be the one in the command of the world.No. |
|
|
|
No. Why bother with Bitcoin, go enjoy some other inflationary currency. Bitcoin is one of the few non-inflationary currencies in existence. Can people who want a non-inflationary currency have a few options for a change?
Not all of us believe that constant consumption is the key to a prosperous future. What we don't need today can be saved for tomorrow.
Perpetually inflating crypto-currencies exist. Use those. OK?
Let's assume Bitcoin is the only currency in existance and your salary is paid in it. I stopped reading right here. This assumption makes any comparison to bitcoin invalid. Bitcoin was not invented either within such an enviornment nor in order to create such an environment. Your argument is invalid. |
|
|
|
Interestingly enough, several Bitcoin-related apps started spiking on the Spanish iPhone market over the weekend. Bitcoin Gold shot up in the Spanish iPhone Finance category from 498 to 72, and another app called Bitcoin Ticker zoomed from 526 to 52 in just one day. A leading service called Bitcoin App jumped from 194 to 151 between Friday and Sunday as Spaniards brooded over the Cyprus crisis. It could be too late for Cyprus although I read the government vote on these measures has now ben put back until at least tomorrow, I'm not sure how that affects the banks as they should be open tomorrow after the holiday. There could ba a huge run on the banks tomorrow unless they remain closed. I read that people in Greece have a suspicion they might be next and they're taking preventative measures. If I was sitting in any one of the Euro nations which are on the 'shit list' I'd be thinking about moving my money out of them too. From what I understand the follwoing countries have issues in addition to Cyprus : Greece, Spain and Portugal Also, lately there have been many articles on the spanish press about Bitcoin, so more people in Spain know about it. Yes, the BS bank deposit tax in Cyprus has put a black cloud over the deposits across all of the non-German banking industry in Europe. So the number of searches and app downloads related to Bitcoin in Spanish has spiked over the weekend. How long does it take for a Spainish citizen to transfer funds into an exchange? |
|
|
|
Forcing a hard fork in order to alter some aspect of the network doesn't even mean that you'll succeed in altering your desired aspect, but the resources required to fight the good hard fork fight are quite high, and completely unrecoverable. Yet, if a minority of users and miners decide to make that fight, there will be a blockchain fork, and the majority of the losses will fall upon the minority group until they can either muster up the resources to dominate the network or quit the fight and take their balls and go home.
It's not necessary to be a fight, two forks can co-exist since they serve the different interest from different users, its just those pre-fork coin can be spent on both fork, and it benefit the early adopters again (Pre-fork coins will worth more, people will try to get as much coin as possible before a fork happened ) It's not necessary, but both chains can't coexist unless one changes certain network parameters, such as port number. So, theoretically, all that is needed to change the 21 M BTC limit is to get everyone to agree to that change; but that isn't something that is up for debate here. No matter who or why, there is no way that a consensus to change that metric in Bitcoin is going to happen without a blockchain fork; and it would be a harsh fight. That number isn't so arbitrary, unlike the max_blocksize rule.
It does not matter it is MAX_BLOCK_SIZE or nSubsidy, as long as they can be changed through a software upgrade, there is a POSSIBILITY that a future software upgrade will change some bitcoin characters. This possibility is the biggest risk and uncertainty of bitcoin I concede that the possibility exists. That's different than claiming that it's a non-trivial risk. |
|
|
|
That is what looks like will happen in the next few months. What about in 10 years? That is much more uncertain. However, the demand could be much greater. It is possible that a single bitcoin will be worth $1,000 to $1,000,000. And likely that a single dollar will only be worth a fraction of what it is worth today.
I have seen many claims in this range, but the problem with such predictions is that they are based upon direct comparisons to the fiat currencies, and estimates about how much a bitcoin would be worth by taking over such-n-such percentage of those fiat currencies economic activity. The issue that I see is that bitcoin is different on more than a superficial level. For example, all fiat currencies can be compared quite well because they all suffer from the same types of 'friction'. By friction, I mean the combined effects of transaction costs external to the currency unit and the combined delays of dealing in a fiat currency across distances & borders. (the latter can be considered a type of the former, but is harder to quantify the costs of delays). For example; the average fiat currency user labors for a weekly or bi-monthly paycheck, and then uses that paycheck to pay his bills in turn. So a cashier at Wal-Mart gets paid (indirectly) from the payments that shoppers use to buy stuff, but there is a minimum delay of one week. This practically means that, under ideal conditions, the max velocity for those fiat dollars is limited by the time it takes for the paycheck to be deposited. Bitcoin is different, as the funds used to buy a knick-knack or two at a Wal-mart in New Mexico can be used to pay accumulated wages earned by a cashier in Calcutta an hour later. Thus, the practical max velocity of Bitcoin is at least 168 times higher than fiat currencies, and that is just considering one common use case. The use case regarding international trade in Bitcoin, as compared to letters of credit, is at least as significant. The higher velocity has a similar effect on the trade value of a currency as does debasement, so long as the velocity of the currency remains high. Therefore, I consider those kinds of massive value estimations to be unlikely. I like your mind. Thanks, I think? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L45SxxxNnINot like this, I hope. |
|
|
|
My view is that the association is silly. The max_blocksize rule was added by Satoshi after the system was already running, in order to remove an attack vector via spamming of the transaction queue, until such time as a more elegant solution could be found.
That's not quite true. Version 1.0 didn't have a 1MB limit, but instead used the same 0x2000000 byte, or 32MiB limit, used for any serialized data. Satoshi later added MAX_BLOCK_SIZE so that miners wouldn't create blocks bigger than 1MB, but larger was still accepted. Finally the hard limit was reduced by Satoshi to 1MB in commit 172f006020965ae8763a0610845c051ed1e3b522 The commit comment is deliberately misleading: "only accept transactions sent by IP address if -allowreceivebyip is specified" How was I "not quite true"? Because I didn't bother to specify details? Was I wrong about the reasons for the change? The comment wasn't deliberately misleading, either. There was a change to prevent direct to IP connections, as that had become viewed as a potential security risk. If the comment was wrong, that was likely accidental. |
|
|
|
Selective censoring of posts is my primary job here. Would you have preferred indiscriminate censoring of posts? Would that work out better? There are only a few reasons that posts are deleted here. One being off-topic, or otherwise just making contentless noise outside of the newbie section. Another is constant bad language or poor manners. Another is posting NSFW materials without such warnings in your thread titles. Another is hotlinking off forum, particularly without identifying what the hotlink is supposed to be; because we are going to assume that it's either a link to malware or rick-rolling, both of which are considered bad manners. You will not find that we censor you for your differences of opinion, but for how you present that opinion. |
|
|
|
This belongs in meta.
Edit: OP you should move your thread since you put it in the wrong place.
I'll do it. |
|
|
|
That is what looks like will happen in the next few months. What about in 10 years? That is much more uncertain. However, the demand could be much greater. It is possible that a single bitcoin will be worth $1,000 to $1,000,000. And likely that a single dollar will only be worth a fraction of what it is worth today.
I have seen many claims in this range, but the problem with such predictions is that they are based upon direct comparisons to the fiat currencies, and estimates about how much a bitcoin would be worth by taking over such-n-such percentage of those fiat currencies economic activity. The issue that I see is that bitcoin is different on more than a superficial level. For example, all fiat currencies can be compared quite well because they all suffer from the same types of 'friction'. By friction, I mean the combined effects of transaction costs external to the currency unit and the combined delays of dealing in a fiat currency across distances & borders. (the latter can be considered a type of the former, but is harder to quantify the costs of delays). For example; the average fiat currency user labors for a weekly or bi-monthly paycheck, and then uses that paycheck to pay his bills in turn. So a cashier at Wal-Mart gets paid (indirectly) from the payments that shoppers use to buy stuff, but there is a minimum delay of one week. This practically means that, under ideal conditions, the max velocity for those fiat dollars is limited by the time it takes for the paycheck to be deposited. Bitcoin is different, as the funds used to buy a knick-knack or two at a Wal-mart in New Mexico can be used to pay accumulated wages earned by a cashier in Calcutta an hour later. Thus, the practical max velocity of Bitcoin is at least 168 times higher than fiat currencies, and that is just considering one common use case. The use case regarding international trade in Bitcoin, as compared to letters of credit, is at least as significant. The higher velocity has a similar effect on the trade value of a currency as does debasement, so long as the velocity of the currency remains high. Therefore, I consider those kinds of massive value estimations to be unlikely. |
|
|
|
Not relevant. We are talking about Bitcoin as a transaction system and a store of value. The blocksize limit is a different issue.
Although different, it is closely related. To raise the blocksize limit, you have to do a hard fork, and a hard fork might affect "store of value" property of bitcoin A hard fork means there is a change in bitcoin protocol, that will shake people's belief on many claims of bitcoin, just like OP wondered, technically speak, all of bitcoin's claims can be changed with a client upgrade, then who is going to guarantee the consistency? This "Hard Currency" start to feel soft If a hard fork will never happen, then "store of value" property will be intact. But this transaction system will become slow and expensive over time due to the block size limit, it might not be very practical to use bitcoin, when you need to wait for days/weeks for a confirmation (if you don't want to pay very high fee) What is your view on this? My view is that the association is silly. The max_blocksize rule was added by Satoshi after the system was already running, in order to remove an attack vector via spamming of the transaction queue, until such time as a more elegant solution could be found. It was never even intended to be a permanent rule. The only reason that a "hard fork" might be required to raise or remove that rule is if some people don't agree that we should raise the limit. Complete consensus is required to avoid a hard fork, and a hard fork is the last argument of otherwise independent bitcoin users. Forcing a hard fork in order to alter some aspect of the network doesn't even mean that you'll succeed in altering your desired aspect, but the resources required to fight the good hard fork fight are quite high, and completely unrecoverable. Yet, if a minority of users and miners decide to make that fight, there will be a blockchain fork, and the majority of the losses will fall upon the minority group until they can either muster up the resources to dominate the network or quit the fight and take their balls and go home. So, theoretically, all that is needed to change the 21 M BTC limit is to get everyone to agree to that change; but that isn't something that is up for debate here. No matter who or why, there is no way that a consensus to change that metric in Bitcoin is going to happen without a blockchain fork; and it would be a harsh fight. That number isn't so arbitrary, unlike the max_blocksize rule. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
