|
The invisible hand will take care of their market dominance when the free trades ends.
|
|
|
|
My vote is against merged mining. If a pool wants to offer a service to allow their users to mine NMC or BTC that is fine but anything where the two block chains are inter-weaved or inter-dependent or whatever-dependent word I can use is similar to pegging the Yuan to the Dollar. The chains will not be connected in any way. Merged mining will combine the power used to find hashes needed for creating blocks, regardless of which chain they belong to. Also, the value of the coins in the chains will not be linked. Namecoins will become worthless because name registration will become free, thus adding nothing new over bitcoins. The other thing I don't see is what problem(s) does merged mining solve that need to be solved for BOTH block chains? So far I don't see any problems with bitcoin's network or blockchain. More hashing power increases security. I'd say that's a rather good thing. |
|
|
|
Well, this is the same guy that initially asked for donations for running his little subreddit, a service provided for free by reddit...  |
|
|
|
Stupid question time, How do I exit a cmd window in Windows 7? the only way I know how is by closing said window.
Ctrl + C |
|
|
|
|
I'm a buyer who have resorted to paying with PayPal (after negotiation with the seller) due to the sellers partially filling my offers with amounts below my bank's minimum SEPA transfer limit.
|
|
|
|
I smell a rat! 3,688 likes & 60 dislikes, yet only 2,713 views. I'm a math major, so take it from me if you're 1+1=2 challenged, this doesn't add up. YouTube view counts are not published instantly for new videos that get lots of views in a short amount of time to prevent spammers from hijacking the prestigious most-viewed ranking list. |
|
|
|
It's ironic that the users who are supposed to guarantee for the security of the network are the ones who care the least about it as long as it makes them a couple of legacy bucks.
who is designated responsibility for the security of the network? is that not up to the users to secure themselves? via securing their wallets and taking personal responsibility for third parties that they trust (pools, exchanges, etc)? It's the miner's job to verify the block chain. This is the main nerve of Bitcoin, and it's not affected by locally encrypted files or auditing of services. If the operator started monkeying with the transactions in the blocks it created...or tried to withhold some blocks in order to effect a double spend, I think it would get noticed in short order and the pool operator would find themselves swimming alone very quickly. If the motive of a pool operator is to discredit Bitcoin rather than profit, this attack would do much more damage than a few exchange rate swings. We've seen how BTC Guild usage recently exploded, so it's not unthinkable that future pools will be able to gain mass network share. If profit is the motive I guess it would be a lot easier to just keep a few blocks now and then without announcing it to the users. And I suspect this is already happening. |
|
|
|
|
It's ironic that the users who are supposed to guarantee for the security of the network are the ones who care the least about it as long as it makes them a couple of legacy bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, they're still relying on one man to operate the service? If MagicalTux gets hit by a Japanese flying bus tomorrow the only thing the rest of the team can do is answer emails?
|
|
|
|
|
G-G-G-G-G-GOXED!!! Now, just be sure to stay loyal to this magnificent service.
|
|
|
|
Clearly you miss the point. The numbers are meaningless to my post. The point is that Bitcoin is going to be of little value and abandoned in a few months' time.
Bitcoins existed for years despite being worthless to you... |
|
|
|
I believe bitcoins will ladder all the way down to about $4 or roughly the amount electricity used to create 1BTC.
I think this will take only a few days now no more 5
which imo is not a bad thing.
I don't know if it's such a good thing. Now the cheap coins are trickling back to the hoarders again. |
|
|
|
|
We're sorry Bitcoin didn't make you a millionaire. Really, who wants to merely change the world anyway?
|
|
|
|
But why would you take further losses if you guess a crash likely now? You both talk as if you see the crash scenario very likely -- if there are more people like that, another price hike becomes quite improbable. Yet hold at all cost?
Let me guess; because Bitcoin is a fascinating technology and fascinating technologies are fun. The genie is out of the barn for crypto-currencies, and it can only become better. If you haven't invested big bucks in it it doesn't matter. The spare-time would have been wasted on other, less ground-breaking things anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Missing option: Switched to other existing exchange.
|
|
|
|
Why are so many sellers giving in at these lower levels?
They've got half or no fees so many are probably counting on buying back at lower prices. |
|
|
|
|
Apparently it doesn't matter how much Mt. Gox suck, everyone will just keep using it. No wonder we're having such a hard time selling the idea of free markets.
|
|
|
|
About time we had some action again.  |
|
|
|
|
This is possible with the RPC function sendmany. It's cheaper for the sender, as it only requires one fee, and it saves network resources as opposed to sending many transactions. Some pools use sendmany to issue its rewards on the fly for every block.
|
|
|
|
Just taking the middle point of the two ends comes to 18.875. Now if we take the volumes into account (ie, for each ask and bid, calculate price * amount and then take the averages) we get the following:
This is because Mt. Gox only publishes a fixed range of the order book based on the current price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
