What I'm trying to understand is how exactly will bitcoin work if everyone starts using bitcon QT with the updated 10gb limit. What will happen to the old blocks? Why would anyone store them anymore? What's the incentive to store a terabyte of blocks (in the future)? Will this mess up bitcoin?
Everyone who owns a bitcoin has an incentive to see the blockchain replicated and stored, because this has the only acceptable proof of their own holding. Terabyte disk storage is very cheap today and storage continues to get cheaper. The cost of helping ensure network health is the delay in initial synchronization and continued bandwidth requirements. People who don't mine, and just invest, should consider spending a small percentage of their bitcoin holding on hardware and bandwidth. |
|
|
|
So you are saying that even if it's not crucial and you could use other clients that do not require you to download the blockchain big ass file, the ideal and most secure scenareo is still using Bitcoin-QT with said big file downloaded and up to date??
Anyone who can run the reference software, and leave it running full time, is helping maintain the health of the Bitcoin network. Anyone who doesn't have the hardware, bandwidth, to do so is better off with Multibit or one of the other lightweight wallets. A further advantage of bitcoin-qt is that you can use Armory, the best wallet for securing large holdings. Of course, as the exchange rate increases even small holdings are "large" now  |
|
|
|
You guys like websites speculating future in common and all the possible development possibly coming then you maybe would like to check out www.futuretimeline.net great site with lots of interesting stuff! Great site. Prediction: 2030 Fiat currencies no longer exist, all replaced by competing crytpocurrencies. |
|
|
|
So, where is this magic $1,000? Power is flowing away from Bitcoin.  FFS. $200 to $800 in a month isn't enough? $1000 might be a Christmas present, or a New Year gift. Why not be happy? |
|
|
|
What if consumer electronics manufacturers in SE Asia are quietly telling their import partners they want bitcoins instead of dollars?
That's exactly what I am expecting too. Especially after the evidence that Bitcoin can transfer $150 million so easily. This might be the international trade story of 2014. |
|
|
|
|
The usual Monday morning incoming fiat tide will drown the bears.
|
|
|
|
Isn't she going to look stupid in a couple years?
She already looks stupid now  She cant be that stupid. A national economics editor cant be that stupid. I agree with the post above, she is trolling. I don't think a national economics editor trolls though.  Definitely no troll there, just "F-" for homework, for sure. |
|
|
|
Jessica Irvine, the National Economics Editor at the Australian Daily Telegraph overviews Bitcoin and concludes: " bitcoin is a distraction. It's a classic bubble. Trust me."http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/jessica-irvinehttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/jessica-irvine/bitcoin-a-bubble-best-avoided-argues-jessica-irvine/story-fnj45kvd-1226766825875https://i.imgur.com/V1KNdwr.jpg"Bit coins are created every day by users. Presently 12 million exist, but the founders have said only 21 million will ever exist. [...]
So should you run out an buy bitcoins?
Short answer: no.
Remember, currencies are only worth what people will pay for them. And that depends on trust and scarcity.
First, scarcity. While the number of bitcoins is supposed to stop at 21 million, whose to say that will happen? The whole point is that it is user generated and not policed by a middle man.
Which brings me to trust. All transactions must be based on trust, and it's hard to see how anonymous users making promises to each other can be trusted in the long term There is a genuine revolution underway in internet transactions. But bitcoin is a distraction. It's a classic bubble.
Trust me."Trust me? She wants her readers to trust her when she has not researched her subject, has no clue about peer-to-peer decentralized consensus, the Bitcoin protocol, or what mining actually does. You don't have to be a programmer to know that the same software running on 200,000 separate computers which cross-checks its results is incredibly resilient. Did she not read that even the US Federal Reserve admits that Bitcoin is technically a tour-de-force? This is a National Economics Editor happy to dismiss a revolutionary economic paradigm without learning about it properly. This might be OK when making a decision for oneself, but not happily advising thousands of readers who, presumably, she wants to take her articles, and indeed her newspaper seriously. F- for this one. Got to try much harder. (Not in the press section - because this is illustrating the general point that many journalists and economists who dismiss Bitcoin have not learned about it properly). |
|
|
|
The mining profit and electricity consumption stats are said to be based on electricity consumption of 600 w/gigahash. This is out of date by factor of at least 100 . Can you update? (Block Erupters are about 7.5 w/ghs and some of the newer ASICS are under a watt). Otherwise the false impression is being given that the network is hugely inefficient in terms of electricity consumption, which is unfortunate.
The electricity cost on the existing chart could either be changed a certain date when the first ASICs became available (1st Feb 2013?) or a new chart started for only ASICs . Not sure which would be better. I have seen a few news articles mention how wasteful Bitcoin is of electricity, and I think they are using this data and not understanding that ASICs are much more efficient. Could the consumption estimate be reduced by at least 100x commencing from March 1st 2013 when ASICs became a significant fraction of network hashing power? Great site and good work guys! |
|
|
|
I too respect Schiff.
However, I remember a youtube video of him was saying the same thing two years ago when BTC was in the single digits. If I would have listened to him then I would have made the worst discussion of my life. I believe the same would be true now.
Earlier this year Karl Denninger at market-ticker called Bitcoin a "Bit Con" and advised his readers "Don't buy". Those that listened have done themselves out of a 1,000% gain since then. |
|
|
|
i dont believe in 10 year holding, i think the risk is great that bitcoin will be replaced by a more convenient cryptocurrency. nowadays bitcoin is the big thing, cryptocurrency=bitcoin. maybe tomorrow cryptocurrency = whothefuckknowswhichcoin today we can tell bitcoin rises but we can also tell there are many alternatives already waiting http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrencyBecause Bitcoin is software it can adapt fast. Because it is money it will be made to adapt fast. If supercoin has some wonderful new feature that makes it better than bitcoin, then $10 billion says bitcoin can copy the supercoin feature. Bang! Supercoin becomes another niche clone-coin. |
|
|
|
I'm worried about going to sleep. The big dump is coming.
Big dumps are just individuals deciding to sell, for many various reasons. This is irrelevant to the market. The market is driven by sentiment and sentiment is up. Every day there are companies announcing they are accepting bitcoins, VCs funding startups, financial advisers seeing sense and recommending clients have a smallholding in bitcoin. There has only really been two bear markets. July - Nov 2011, and April - June 2013. The rest of the time sentiment has been positive. |
|
|
|
I think that there should be FOUR buttons to choose the fee, in addition to an edit box. Pressing a button will fill in the edit box with the appropriate value. Assuming that Gavin adds some client code to analyze the block chain and calculate the "median" expected transaction fee per kilobyte, these four buttons would be handy:
"Most transactions require a fee for quick processing. What priority do you want to give your transaction?"
Button: "Normal Priority" (fills in the edit box with the median fee)
Button: "High Priority" (fills in the edit box with double the median fee)
Button: "Low Priority" (fills in the edit box with half the median fee)
Button: "No Fee (may take a long time)" (fills in the edit box with zero)
I'm sure the language could be cleaned up and I'm sure there are a zillion alternate ways to scale the median for "low" and "high" but you get the idea. The user need only press a button to indicate the relative priority of the transaction.
This is the right approach. I would suggest an even simpler dialog box which is color-coded, and has an "advanced options" check box for those that want full control. Select the priority urgency of your transaction:[ ] Fast
[ ] Normal
[ ] Slow[ ] Advanced optionsThe software calculates the appropriate fee and displays it for the final confirm/cancel. If the user thinks the fee is too much they can change it before confirming. The slow option will select zero fee if appropriate, or a small fee if it is unlikely to be processed at a zero fee. Advanced options are more like the dialog box in the OP and has system metrics / network statistics / pending transactions. (edit: urgency) |
|
|
|
So glad i'm no longer part of this mess.
Yeah. MtGox is like that slow-mo van-off-a-bridge crash in "Inception" which lasted half the film. |
|
|
|
the 1000 USD mark will make lots of headlines around the world...
Almost as much as the $1279 mark (or thereabouts). |
|
|
|
Satoshi preparing to buy his mega yacht?? This is not Satoshi as his coins are in 50 BTC lots in thousands of different addresses from 2009/10. |
|
|
|
Its not a cup and handle formation. Cup and handles are specifically supposed to be U shaped and not V shaped. lets make up a new term. call it, V shaped TA trap. What's on the top right... a red-giant star about to go supernova!? |
|
|
|
...
1) It's not market manipulation, it's a stock buy-back over a long period of time, with complete transparency
2) It doesn't make MSC more centralized, because we'll be giving this money away in bounties rather quickly
Thanks!
Makes absolute sense. |
|
|
|
|
3-3 deadlock is not exactly a resounding "no". Expect this to be debated again, and again soon enough,
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
