|
Shipped. UPS showing Tuesday delivery.
|
|
|
|
the argument for side-chains is that everyone should use the hashing-power of Bitcoin.
That is not really the argument. The argument is for other developers to adopt the scarcity model of bitcoin, or alternately for the population of developers who have adopted the scarcity model of bitcoin to be able to innovate in a larger space (compared to the status quo where it is very hard to innovate anything in bitcoin). |
|
|
|
I say he may dump his altcoin holdings because BTC is his personal triumphant achievement and a novel altcoin (not some dump generic sha256/scrypt pumpndump coin) that begins performing very well would be a threat to BTC. Let's let the market decide, okay? why do you suppose peter has not given any input in on my position?
Because you are free to create your own distribution schemes, and go right ahead and start your own thread discussing them. Peter R has his scheme, which may or may not "work," but the only real way to find out is to try it. Proposing alternate schemes does not help test this one. |
|
|
|
you have invented a way for bitcoin owners to steal new crypto-technology from the creators
Absurd. The creators give their permission by releasing under an open source license. There are a number of viable models for funding and/or monetizing open source development, but using a pre-mine to do it is new and largely untested. If it turns out not to be viable, that would not be all that surprising. Can you read? My point doesn't go away if you only qoute half of my sentences you fucktard. When you start confusing forking with stealing and theft, how much of that dribble am I supposed to quote? I quoted enough to show how confused you are. The right to fork (and have your fork adopted by the community if the community should so choose), is a foundational and universally accepted tenet of open source. You really should go learn about it rather than continuing to so vividly demonstrate your ignorance. |
|
|
|
okay this is getting wierd. Maybe all of you just happened to have alt profiles and get interested in it the same day . . but there's an awfully large amount of profiles created march 20-22 posting here.
Check their last active |
|
|
|
I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.
nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining. you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009. not his fault. you're missing the whole point of this proposal. no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's. thats a strawman. yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency. There are a few hundred altcoins, none of which, as far as we know, has Satoshi owning 10%. Some of them probably don't have anyone else owning 10% either, and all of them are quite similar to bitcoin. If the risk of Satoshi dumping his coins were a major factor in success, one of those coins would have eclipsed bitcoin by now. |
|
|
|
Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'
Can you explain why it is a fallacy. |
|
|
|
and non-inflationary.
It's not inflationary because the value of spin-off foocoin is already incorporated in the value of bitcoin. Bitcoin (pre-spin-off) = bitcoin (ex-spin-off) + foo coin. This does not mean that foo coin couldn't possibly replace bitcoin or even possibly (though the prevailing view seems to discount this) co-exist alongside bitcoin. In this sense I don't agree with Peter R that the process is non-threatening, to the extent that your allegiance is to ex-spin-off bitcoin as opposed to pre-spin-off bitcoin), but in and of itself the spin-off process is not inflationary. I don't think it serves the same purpose as side chains though. |
|
|
|
Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment. Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;allThe short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin. Thanks for the link. Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored. As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved. I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month. Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted. If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted. |
|
|
|
Still using this concept of Spin-offs for distribution, if you believe Nakamoto or other holders who haven’t moved there 10,000’s of coins since 2010 shouldn’t get any
I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity. About the only definition of "fairness" that excludes early bitcoin developers and adopters is the one where something is made fair by you getting more and others getting less. Come to think of it, that's probably is a pretty good working definition of what people really mean by "fairness" most of the time. I don't see it as an objectively useful concept. |
|
|
|
|
I will be listing another AntMiner S1 within a few days.
|
|
|
|
Unit was shipped, and tracking number provided to buyer. |
|
|
|
Maybe someone can elude my thinking.
This coin claims to be truly anonymous, something bitcoin could not achieve.
Why would we need to be anonymous. Well to be independent from government for instance and to be secure from money seizure.
But if you don't want your wealth store seized,then is a coin with a wallet file the right way to go?
In that concept there is no such thing as a brain wallet, or am I getting it wrong ? Same issure with bitcoins. If your hard disk is seized (or broken), your wealth store is gone.
There is a coin with a diffrent concept, where no matter where you are in the world, you can enter your passphrase and access your money as long as the network is up and running. So no wallet file. It is a decentralized wallet. If your passphrase is good, your money is secure. No one can take it from you, except he's guessing your passphrase.
In my eyes brainwallets are a huge advantage over a filebound wallet.
Or am I getting something wrong here ? Is it possible to access my bytecoins from any computer in the world, without having my initial wallet file ?
I think you could in fact memorize a BCN private key (i.e. brain wallet). It might be harder to memorize than a bitcoin key, but I'm not sure. Would have to look more closely at the key format. |
|
|
|
Actually I believe that is the core meaning of Coase's theorem: valuable assets will end up being owned by savvy folks and the only thing separating them are the transaction costs.
Not necessarily savvy folks, but the folks who value the asset the most. Regardless of the initial distribution. Total costs are minimized if process of initial distribution is efficient, and thus such coins should outcompete equivalent coins with added sunk costs in distribution. Perhaps this bitcoin spin-off idea will do that. We'll see. |
|
|
|
you have invented a way for bitcoin owners to steal new crypto-technology from the creators
Absurd. The creators give their permission by releasing under an open source license. There are a number of viable models for funding and/or monetizing open source development, but using a pre-mine to do it is new and largely untested. If it turns out not to be viable, that would not be all that surprising. |
|
|
|
So the initial distribution does not really matter much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theoremIf you believe the conditions of the Coase theorem apply, then the conclusion is that the initial distribution with the least costs is best. Using bitcoin as a distribution mechanism makes sense because it is secure. That wouldn't be true if you try to do a "per person" airdrop, because then you need to verify IDs and people will try to cheat, both of which are costly. A zero-premine also might make sense, although the race to be the first to mine might be wasteful. |
|
|
|
When is someone going to create an ETF on crypto currencies? It would be much easier to invest than using coinbase and waiting an eternity.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bitcoin+etf |
|
|
|
|
I think there is a lot of potential for paywalls to provide short term access to paid content without having to register (even free registration). The rate of people not registering when presented with a registration page is really high which tells me most people don't want to do it. More people might be okay with paying the equivalent of 25c-$1 to access content, the online equivalent of buying a newspaper.
There are probably more use cases like this. Bitcoin is the equivalent of cash for online purchases, something that didn't exist before. If there is something you would or do pay cash for offline, and an equivalent exists online (so things like food don't count), that is something useful to you as a consumer.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
