|
I think we're headed to $60+ in the near future myself.
|
|
|
|
 As soon as this is finished I will begin refunds. Should be today for sure. This image shows that cablepair is mining at about 2.9 BTC/day. At that rate he will be able to pay me back in about 2 months. It also shows that his mining payout address is 199ogzBses5fcz3VhKPTu6iLybR3ZHvAKQ, that he has mined almost 2,000 BTC, and that he has 40 BTC left (in the mining address). And actually, it shows that he's been getting a 10 BTC payout more often than every other day, with 60 BTC received in the last 9 days, so he's generating around 6.7 BTC/day. |
|
|
|
The refund should be given in the exact currency paid, bitcoins.
If I traded 55 oz of silver coins for 1 gold coin and you never delivered the gold coin and the silver/gold ratio changed to 30 would you only give back 30 oz of silver? The idea that you have to sell a coin back to them instead of getting a refund nonsense, he paid for delivery so he either gets it delivered or a full refund.
USD don't enter into it. If the person wanted to trade in USD they likely would have gone to a conventional gold dealer.
No company should use their customer as a hedge. It is not the customers fault that the company spent bitcoins on gold that they could not ship before the price in bitcoins went down.
They need either send the metal he paid for or return all of the payment. To give back less bitcoins than paid it nothing short of a rip off.
As long as USD isn't shown on the order page, invoice, or receipt, I agree 100%. |
|
|
|
So what I see from this thread is that if a company ONLY steals 80 or so BTC once in a great while, it's not a scam, it's just bad business practice.
How many times does this need to happen before people consider it a scam?
I don't get that feeling. Most people in this thread are calling for a scammer tag. |
|
|
|
Here's the thread I was looking for in which theymos describes the entropy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109092.0Last time I checked, Bitcoin used:
- Microsecond time.
- GUI events
- /dev/urandom if available
- HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA on Windows So essentially 3 different random things. And even if the user isn't utilizing the GUI (a server instance, for example), the OS-specific ones (urandom and HKEY_) are sufficiently removed from the microsecond time as to be unreproducible, AFAIK. This answer is for the Satoshi client. But the answer does show the point that the number of addresses from which the Satoshi client chooses, when it chooses a bitcoin address, is far less than the 10^38 degrees of entropy possible in the final bitcoin addresses. This question needs to be addressed by developers of each wallet. I looked through some of the code for the Electrum wallet, and it appears to use the Python random number generator. I could be wrong, but that would create even a smaller pool of Electrum wallet 'seeds'. Imagine installling a new wallet on your computer to find that there's already money in it! Can you show some maths to support your degrees of entropy claim? I don't think you're wrong, I just want to see a more exact estimate. |
|
|
|
Good luck finding someone willing to sell his/her preorder for less than they paid for it. (In Btc, we breath Btc, eat Btc etc so F fiat)
Probably better to close this thread since you are so focussed on USD!
It just annoys me, this whole marketplace is all about the btc to USD ratio, all Im saying is that I would have just bought a miner in USD at the time if I knew btc was gonna go up. regardless I will pay in btc, but it fluctuates so wildly I'm putting it in USD for now A fascinating thing to say. Let's say, for example, you had 400 BTC on June 23rd. And to simplify, we'll say the BTC price was $5 then. An SC Single would have cost you $1,300 or 260 BTC. You could have bought one for 260 BTC, or you could have sold 260 BTC for USD and bought one for $1,300. What's the difference between the two? Nothing! To look at it another way, those who spent $1,300 on an SC Single could have instead purchased 260 BTC, and they'd be sitting on $12k right now. So it doesn't really matter whether you spent BTC or USD, it just matters that BTC would have been a better investment. Hindsight is 20/20, of course. |
|
|
|
Here's the thread I was looking for in which theymos describes the entropy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109092.0Last time I checked, Bitcoin used:
- Microsecond time.
- GUI events
- /dev/urandom if available
- HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA on Windows So essentially 3 different random things. And even if the user isn't utilizing the GUI (a server instance, for example), the OS-specific ones (urandom and HKEY_) are sufficiently removed from the microsecond time as to be unreproducible, AFAIK. |
|
|
|
Many of these wallets, and other tools, generate random bitcoin addresses. From someone who started programming in the 1970s, we learned quickly then that computers are deterministic machines. There is no such thing as a random number. So, people started seeding their random number generators with certain random things, like the number of milliseconds at which time the program ran. This generally solved the random number problem.
However! The degree of precision at which random number generators, are seeded, could be extremely important for bitcoin. If the degree of precision of the seeds that these random number generators use in bitcoin wallets, is not large enough, (or random enough), then bitcoin addresses could be expected to be repeated much more often than we might expect when we calculate a very large degree of entropy in the final bitcoin address.
So, in each wallet, it is crucial to find out how, and to what degree of precision, the random number generators are being seeded, that are used to create the bitcoin addresses that we use.
Does anyone have any idea as to how these number generators work in some of the common wallets like Satoshi, or Electrum? If not, then I think it's crucial that we find out.
I asked this question a while back. I think there were 6 different factors that were used in generation of random addresses to ensure sufficient entropy. Hopefully someone will chime in with exactly what those were, but it definitely satisfied me that the addresses are extremely random. |
|
|
|
Ok, that answers the last question. What about the two right before it that you conveniently avoided?
The fact of the matter is, there is no way to determine true transaction volume without knowing who is sending to who. Therefore, this multiplier could be manipulated by anyone at any time for any reason, and would not be a reliably corollary for supply (and therefore price) to base itself upon. You seem to want to simply ignore this glaring flaw in your argument for price stability.
I don't see why it is necessary to discriminate the change address. When a node confirms a transaction it has complete knowledge of the amounts of bitcoins involved in the transaction. It is true that clients can create spurious volume by ping ponging transactions back and forth, but I accept that as a possible source of error. In truth, we can imagine transactions of different importance. For example, two parties might be doing a business deal, but another transaction might be some guy juggling the coins in his accounts to tidy them up. The multiplication metric does not attempt to judge how "worthy" a transaction is, it just gauges the overall volume. So you think that if I send a transaction of 1 BTC to someone out of an address holding a 100 BTC input, that counting all 100 BTC as transaction volume is ok? 99 BTC of that isn't true economic activity, and shouldn't be an indicator of such. Here's an example of how to game your system. I plan to buy a car for 1,000 BTC. I send that 1,000 BTC on a wild goose chase across many many different addresses, to generate false transaction volume and increase the multiplier. I now have 1,100 BTC. I send 1,000 BTC to the dealer, "saving" myself 100 BTC. Because the transaction volume was false, I am left (at some point in the future when the multiplier re-adjusts) with 91 BTC, and the dealer is left with 909 BTC (roughly). Regardless, I think your idea has merit as an experimental altcoin (it IS an interesting idea), just not exactly in the way you describe. I think you still need a reasonable way to distribute currency at the beginning that doesn't just involve a multiplier (the way you describe it, it would be a 100% premine with a single person holding on to all of the currency until they decided to distribute it how they choose), but creates some method of distributing new currency to new users across many years. I think that transaction volume should be indicated in "Altcoin days destroyed" instead of straight-up transaction volume over a given period of time. This would prevent, to an extent, gaming of the system, though holders of large numbers of Altcoin days could theoretically game the system one time. Maybe they put Altcoin days up for sale to be destroyed upon the date and time of the highest bidder's choosing or something. I also think that some people might be more concerned with coins being added or taken from their account on an unpredictable basis than they would be of the price fluctuations inherent in Bitcoin. Would people rather have a fluctuating number of coins in their wallet based on a best estimate of transaction volume, or would they rather have a fluctuating price based on free market buying and selling? And finally, couldn't a decrease in transaction volume, which would cause people to lose coins from their wallets, theoretically feedback to itself in a deflationary spiral? Something along the lines of, "Well, I only have 90 coins instead of 100 that I had yesterday, so I'm not going to buy that computer." And then they only have 80 coins, then 70, etc, because no one is buying anything? I mean, I'm not making the argument that Bitcoin doesn't also have the same potential problem, but this doesn't fix potential deflation-related problems. You are right, there is a psychological effect of, gee I had 100 btc yesterday, and today I only have 90, but the dollar value should remain roughly the same if the multiplier is doing its job. So if your 100 btc were worth $1000, then your 90 btc should be worth approximately the same, $1000. Note that in practice I would expect the multiplier to change slowly, so that daily changes in your btc count might only be 0.5% or less. Compare that to the situation today where the value of bitcoins is bouncing up and down 15% every day. Right now it is hard for vendors to use bitcoins because they have to have a live link to an exchange to keep their prices in sync, which is a big hassle and uncertainty. With a stability multiplier the vendor can set a single price in btc and the value will remain constant over a long period of time. No need to be constantly updating your prices. For a vendor with thousands of items in inventory that is a game changing advantage. How about the non-psychological effect of cheating my car dealer out of 91 BTC? Even though you don't see it in the price, the value that a person is holding still fluctuates. You said that in practice, even if someone tried to game it, the daily changes might be 0.5% or less. I don't have enough of a predictive spirit to know whether that is true, which is why I think this would be an interesting experiment, to see what would really happen. If the multiplier doesn't change quickly enough, it won't be a true enough indicator of economic activity, and the price could vary greatly. If the multiplier changes too quickly, it would be too easy to game. There would certainly need to be some sort of balance between the two. If the vendor sets up a link to an exchange, it doesn't matter if they sell 100 items or 10,000, it's the same amount of work to set up said link. Not really a game-changer IMO. You still haven't really touched on how you would initially distribute a currency like this. If not through mining, then how? Well, in the beginning one person would have the entire pool which could be started at some convenient number of coins, say 1000. Then the Adam would pay some of them to Eve, say 250. So on and so forth. Now, in thinking about this, I see there is a mistake in my plan because if the multiplier were applied to all coins equally then Eve's pool (imagine she held onto it) would always be worth 25% of the total which would mean her wallet would grow in value. So, to make it work we need to only apply the multiplier to the coins being transacted. That way the value of Eve's coins stays the same if she holds onto them. Now, as you said above this seems to create a situation where you can increase the number of coins you have just by doing fake transactions, but this is not strictly true because remember that the multiplier can be positive or negative, so if you did your transaction during a downturn then the value of the coins might decrease slightly instead of increase. In any case, the hope would be that the change on any one transaction would be so small that it would not be worth creating fake transactions. In fact, using a transaction processing fee linked to the multiplier might prevent the benefit entirely. You can see one of the advantages of this system compared to bitcoins the way they are now: if Eve were to hold onto her btc which the capitalization grew, her 25% could turn into millions of dollars even though the original value of the transaction might be, say $20. But with a multiplier her coins will never be worth more than the original $20, because they are price stable. Apply the multiplier to the coins being transacted? Then people would most certainly be sending coins to themselves! The multiplier is public information, so any time the multiplier is greater than 1, people would send themselves coins constantly, to continually increase the number of coins they have. Which would, in turn, increase the multiplier even further, and it'd just spiral upward in fake inflation forever. It seems like the longer this discussion continues, the more elementary the mistakes you are making in your logic. |
|
|
|
wow I wonder how much he paid for instawallet.org? and he made 30,000,000. talk about a good investment! I wish everyone could be notified that has a instawallet before everyone gets robbed.
He's made nothing. $30,000,000 is the rough value of the coins currently deposited in instawallets, but that has nothing to do with how much profit he has made. |
|
|
|
Ok, that answers the last question. What about the two right before it that you conveniently avoided?
The fact of the matter is, there is no way to determine true transaction volume without knowing who is sending to who. Therefore, this multiplier could be manipulated by anyone at any time for any reason, and would not be a reliably corollary for supply (and therefore price) to base itself upon. You seem to want to simply ignore this glaring flaw in your argument for price stability.
I don't see why it is necessary to discriminate the change address. When a node confirms a transaction it has complete knowledge of the amounts of bitcoins involved in the transaction. It is true that clients can create spurious volume by ping ponging transactions back and forth, but I accept that as a possible source of error. In truth, we can imagine transactions of different importance. For example, two parties might be doing a business deal, but another transaction might be some guy juggling the coins in his accounts to tidy them up. The multiplication metric does not attempt to judge how "worthy" a transaction is, it just gauges the overall volume. So you think that if I send a transaction of 1 BTC to someone out of an address holding a 100 BTC input, that counting all 100 BTC as transaction volume is ok? 99 BTC of that isn't true economic activity, and shouldn't be an indicator of such. Here's an example of how to game your system. I plan to buy a car for 1,000 BTC. I send that 1,000 BTC on a wild goose chase across many many different addresses, to generate false transaction volume and increase the multiplier. I now have 1,100 BTC. I send 1,000 BTC to the dealer, "saving" myself 100 BTC. Because the transaction volume was false, I am left (at some point in the future when the multiplier re-adjusts) with 91 BTC, and the dealer is left with 909 BTC (roughly). Regardless, I think your idea has merit as an experimental altcoin (it IS an interesting idea), just not exactly in the way you describe. I think you still need a reasonable way to distribute currency at the beginning that doesn't just involve a multiplier (the way you describe it, it would be a 100% premine with a single person holding on to all of the currency until they decided to distribute it how they choose), but creates some method of distributing new currency to new users across many years. I think that transaction volume should be indicated in "Altcoin days destroyed" instead of straight-up transaction volume over a given period of time. This would prevent, to an extent, gaming of the system, though holders of large numbers of Altcoin days could theoretically game the system one time. Maybe they put Altcoin days up for sale to be destroyed upon the date and time of the highest bidder's choosing or something. I also think that some people might be more concerned with coins being added or taken from their account on an unpredictable basis than they would be of the price fluctuations inherent in Bitcoin. Would people rather have a fluctuating number of coins in their wallet based on a best estimate of transaction volume, or would they rather have a fluctuating price based on free market buying and selling? And finally, couldn't a decrease in transaction volume, which would cause people to lose coins from their wallets, theoretically feedback to itself in a deflationary spiral? Something along the lines of, "Well, I only have 90 coins instead of 100 that I had yesterday, so I'm not going to buy that computer." And then they only have 80 coins, then 70, etc, because no one is buying anything? I mean, I'm not making the argument that Bitcoin doesn't also have the same potential problem, but this doesn't fix potential deflation-related problems. You are right, there is a psychological effect of, gee I had 100 btc yesterday, and today I only have 90, but the dollar value should remain roughly the same if the multiplier is doing its job. So if your 100 btc were worth $1000, then your 90 btc should be worth approximately the same, $1000. Note that in practice I would expect the multiplier to change slowly, so that daily changes in your btc count might only be 0.5% or less. Compare that to the situation today where the value of bitcoins is bouncing up and down 15% every day. Right now it is hard for vendors to use bitcoins because they have to have a live link to an exchange to keep their prices in sync, which is a big hassle and uncertainty. With a stability multiplier the vendor can set a single price in btc and the value will remain constant over a long period of time. No need to be constantly updating your prices. For a vendor with thousands of items in inventory that is a game changing advantage. How about the non-psychological effect of cheating my car dealer out of 91 BTC? Even though you don't see it in the price, the value that a person is holding still fluctuates. You said that in practice, even if someone tried to game it, the daily changes might be 0.5% or less. I don't have enough of a predictive spirit to know whether that is true, which is why I think this would be an interesting experiment, to see what would really happen. If the multiplier doesn't change quickly enough, it won't be a true enough indicator of economic activity, and the price could vary greatly. If the multiplier changes too quickly, it would be too easy to game. There would certainly need to be some sort of balance between the two. If the vendor sets up a link to an exchange, it doesn't matter if they sell 100 items or 10,000, it's the same amount of work to set up said link. Not really a game-changer IMO. You still haven't really touched on how you would initially distribute a currency like this. If not through mining, then how? |
|
|
|
|
I think the speculation on LTC is fascinating...
|
|
|
|
Ok, that answers the last question. What about the two right before it that you conveniently avoided?
The fact of the matter is, there is no way to determine true transaction volume without knowing who is sending to who. Therefore, this multiplier could be manipulated by anyone at any time for any reason, and would not be a reliably corollary for supply (and therefore price) to base itself upon. You seem to want to simply ignore this glaring flaw in your argument for price stability.
I don't see why it is necessary to discriminate the change address. When a node confirms a transaction it has complete knowledge of the amounts of bitcoins involved in the transaction. It is true that clients can create spurious volume by ping ponging transactions back and forth, but I accept that as a possible source of error. In truth, we can imagine transactions of different importance. For example, two parties might be doing a business deal, but another transaction might be some guy juggling the coins in his accounts to tidy them up. The multiplication metric does not attempt to judge how "worthy" a transaction is, it just gauges the overall volume. So you think that if I send a transaction of 1 BTC to someone out of an address holding a 100 BTC input, that counting all 100 BTC as transaction volume is ok? 99 BTC of that isn't true economic activity, and shouldn't be an indicator of such. Here's an example of how to game your system. I plan to buy a car for 1,000 BTC. I send that 1,000 BTC on a wild goose chase across many many different addresses, to generate false transaction volume and increase the multiplier. I now have 1,100 BTC. I send 1,000 BTC to the dealer, "saving" myself 100 BTC. Because the transaction volume was false, I am left (at some point in the future when the multiplier re-adjusts) with 91 BTC, and the dealer is left with 909 BTC (roughly). Regardless, I think your idea has merit as an experimental altcoin (it IS an interesting idea), just not exactly in the way you describe. I think you still need a reasonable way to distribute currency at the beginning that doesn't just involve a multiplier (the way you describe it, it would be a 100% premine with a single person holding on to all of the currency until they decided to distribute it how they choose), but creates some method of distributing new currency to new users across many years. I think that transaction volume should be indicated in "Altcoin days destroyed" instead of straight-up transaction volume over a given period of time. This would prevent, to an extent, gaming of the system, though holders of large numbers of Altcoin days could theoretically game the system one time. Maybe they put Altcoin days up for sale to be destroyed upon the date and time of the highest bidder's choosing or something. I also think that some people might be more concerned with coins being added or taken from their account on an unpredictable basis than they would be of the price fluctuations inherent in Bitcoin. Would people rather have a fluctuating number of coins in their wallet based on a best estimate of transaction volume, or would they rather have a fluctuating price based on free market buying and selling? And finally, couldn't a decrease in transaction volume, which would cause people to lose coins from their wallets, theoretically feedback to itself in a deflationary spiral? Something along the lines of, "Well, I only have 90 coins instead of 100 that I had yesterday, so I'm not going to buy that computer." And then they only have 80 coins, then 70, etc, because no one is buying anything? I mean, I'm not making the argument that Bitcoin doesn't also have the same potential problem, but this doesn't fix potential deflation-related problems. |
|
|
|
I'm glad they addressed the issues quickly and in a professional manner though.
Doesn't look resolved to me. The limit is still there. OK you can configure 0.8 to reject troublesome blocks to make it same as 0.7. But the limit is still there. So I guess the devs will have to wait till 0.7 miners are, say, 1% of the network before releasing a v0.8.1 without the limit. But then the 0.8 miners are being limited by configuration right now. So again the 0.8.1 miners will need to have some sort of logic that makes them wait till they are a large majority, before accepting larger blocks. (Almost) catch 22? Or where did I get it wrong? I would think every Bitcoin user running a full node would also have to upgrade, else they would receive errors and not be able to download/process/verify the latest blocks as well? It's kind of a forced upgrade once the miners make the switch, since the pre-0.8.1 users wouldn't have very many (if any) new blocks generated on their fork. |
|
|
|
- Generate new bitcoins proportionally to the volume of transactions and distribute the new coins proportionately to existing holders of bitcoins; the whole mining thing is pointless and destabilizing.
Please do explain what the point of distributing new coins proportionately to existing holders of coins? It's the equivalent of changing the decimal place and claiming you are 10 times richer because of it. For how smart you claim to be, you sure are disappointing me with your "solutions". P.S. I knew a guy on the internet who claimed he owned a lambo too.  Hey, I am only 140 IQ. You probably need somebody like 165 to solve the bitcoin problem. :-) As far as the mining is concerned, that was definitely the work of a 125. A much better idea is to increase the supply of coins proportionately to the transaction volume. This would result in price stability, an important characteristic of a currency which bitcoin currently lacks entirely. Note that the supply of bitcoins could also decrease if the transaction volume shrank. The way it should work is that the network continually adjusts the total supply of coins. Each holder does not hold coin totals, they hold a fraction of the total. So, your fraction never changes, but its valuation does depending on the volume of trades. Price stability is important to the economy for numerous reasons which can you read for yourself in the book "The Stability of Prices" by noted economist, Simon N. Patten. The idea of increasing the supply of coins proportionately to the transaction volume is interesting, but how are you going to do that without identifying the person behind each Bitcoin address? If Bitcoin addresses weren't at least partially anonymous, then everyone could know exactly how everyone else is spending their money. That doesn't sound like a great financial system to me... It is my belief that price stability will come with adoption. As more and more people begin using Bitcoin, the price will become more and more stable. I'd say with mass adoption, we'd see stability come close to that of Gold. I could be completely wrong - I am no expert - but this is what I currently believe we will see happen. Widespread adoption of bitcoins would certainly decrease price volatility, but nevertheless, price swings would still persist. In an economically proper crypto currency each client would maintain a constant, the value multiplier, just the way it now maintains the proof of work target. The value multiplier would determine how many bitcoins each address has by multiplying the wallet's fraction. Thus, the number of bitcoins you had would go up and down, but their value would remain relatively constant. In practice what would happen is that as adoption increased the capitalization would increase, but the value of each bitcoin would remain stable. For example, the capitalization of bitcoins has recently gone from $50 million to over $300 million, with a consequent increase in the value of each bitcoin. This is because the supply of bitcoins has not increased as fast as the volume of transactions has increased. If we had increased the volume of the bitcoins outstanding by 6x then the price of each bitcoin would have remained relatively stable during the recent growth period. I agree - price swings in ANYTHING would be impossible to completely eliminate, and I don't think Bitcoin could ever reach the point of price stability like we see with a national currency. Ok, I understand that trading percentages of the currency would be the backend way of doing it, and the number of coins per percentage would change according to transaction volume. But I think you misunderstood the point I was attempting to make - apologies for not making it clear enough. How would you know what the true transaction volume is when people can create as many addresses as they like and send coins between them? Also, how would you know which address the Bitcoins were sent to vs which address was the change address? Also, how would this transaction volume determination be made and agreed upon in a decentralized manner? There is only a single multiplier which is known to all clients. Every time a transaction is confirmed it has a effect on the multiplier based on the previous multiplier, the size of the transaction, and the time of the last transaction. There is a field of mathematics called "queuing theory" which lets you determine transactional volumes and velocities and balance them. These equations can be used to ensure that the multiplier remains proportional to current global transactional volume. The adjustment is decentralized because it is part of the confirmation. When a transaction is confirmed the adjustment effect to the multiplier is determined at the same time and becomes part of the data of the transaction. Ok, that answers the last question. What about the two right before it that you conveniently avoided? The fact of the matter is, there is no way to determine true transaction volume without knowing who is sending to who. Therefore, this multiplier could be manipulated by anyone at any time for any reason, and would not be a reliably corollary for supply (and therefore price) to base itself upon. You seem to want to simply ignore this glaring flaw in your argument for price stability. |
|
|
|
- Generate new bitcoins proportionally to the volume of transactions and distribute the new coins proportionately to existing holders of bitcoins; the whole mining thing is pointless and destabilizing.
Please do explain what the point of distributing new coins proportionately to existing holders of coins? It's the equivalent of changing the decimal place and claiming you are 10 times richer because of it. For how smart you claim to be, you sure are disappointing me with your "solutions". P.S. I knew a guy on the internet who claimed he owned a lambo too. Hey, I am only 140 IQ. You probably need somebody like 165 to solve the bitcoin problem. :-) As far as the mining is concerned, that was definitely the work of a 125. A much better idea is to increase the supply of coins proportionately to the transaction volume. This would result in price stability, an important characteristic of a currency which bitcoin currently lacks entirely. Note that the supply of bitcoins could also decrease if the transaction volume shrank. The way it should work is that the network continually adjusts the total supply of coins. Each holder does not hold coin totals, they hold a fraction of the total. So, your fraction never changes, but its valuation does depending on the volume of trades. Price stability is important to the economy for numerous reasons which can you read for yourself in the book "The Stability of Prices" by noted economist, Simon N. Patten. The idea of increasing the supply of coins proportionately to the transaction volume is interesting, but how are you going to do that without identifying the person behind each Bitcoin address? If Bitcoin addresses weren't at least partially anonymous, then everyone could know exactly how everyone else is spending their money. That doesn't sound like a great financial system to me... It is my belief that price stability will come with adoption. As more and more people begin using Bitcoin, the price will become more and more stable. I'd say with mass adoption, we'd see stability come close to that of Gold. I could be completely wrong - I am no expert - but this is what I currently believe we will see happen. Widespread adoption of bitcoins would certainly decrease price volatility, but nevertheless, price swings would still persist. In an economically proper crypto currency each client would maintain a constant, the value multiplier, just the way it now maintains the proof of work target. The value multiplier would determine how many bitcoins each address has by multiplying the wallet's fraction. Thus, the number of bitcoins you had would go up and down, but their value would remain relatively constant. In practice what would happen is that as adoption increased the capitalization would increase, but the value of each bitcoin would remain stable. For example, the capitalization of bitcoins has recently gone from $50 million to over $300 million, with a consequent increase in the value of each bitcoin. This is because the supply of bitcoins has not increased as fast as the volume of transactions has increased. If we had increased the volume of the bitcoins outstanding by 6x then the price of each bitcoin would have remained relatively stable during the recent growth period. I agree - price swings in ANYTHING would be impossible to completely eliminate, and I don't think Bitcoin could ever reach the point of price stability like we see with a national currency. Ok, I understand that trading percentages of the currency would be the backend way of doing it, and the number of coins per percentage would change according to transaction volume. But I think you misunderstood the point I was attempting to make - apologies for not making it clear enough. How would you know what the true transaction volume is when people can create as many addresses as they like and send coins between them? Also, how would you know which address the Bitcoins were sent to vs which address was the change address? Also, how would this transaction volume determination be made and agreed upon in a decentralized manner? |
|
|
|
Hey guys!
Did you sign up & get your free LTC from 420? If you did and are unsure what to do with it, you can trade me for BTC.
.5LTC = .006BTC
I would just like to note that this is (currently) a better price for those trading away LTC than what is offered at BTC-E. Cheers! |
|
|
|
- Generate new bitcoins proportionally to the volume of transactions and distribute the new coins proportionately to existing holders of bitcoins; the whole mining thing is pointless and destabilizing.
Please do explain what the point of distributing new coins proportionately to existing holders of coins? It's the equivalent of changing the decimal place and claiming you are 10 times richer because of it. For how smart you claim to be, you sure are disappointing me with your "solutions". P.S. I knew a guy on the internet who claimed he owned a lambo too. Hey, I am only 140 IQ. You probably need somebody like 165 to solve the bitcoin problem. :-) As far as the mining is concerned, that was definitely the work of a 125. A much better idea is to increase the supply of coins proportionately to the transaction volume. This would result in price stability, an important characteristic of a currency which bitcoin currently lacks entirely. Note that the supply of bitcoins could also decrease if the transaction volume shrank. The way it should work is that the network continually adjusts the total supply of coins. Each holder does not hold coin totals, they hold a fraction of the total. So, your fraction never changes, but its valuation does depending on the volume of trades. Price stability is important to the economy for numerous reasons which can you read for yourself in the book "The Stability of Prices" by noted economist, Simon N. Patten. The idea of increasing the supply of coins proportionately to the transaction volume is interesting, but how are you going to do that without identifying the person behind each Bitcoin address? If Bitcoin addresses weren't at least partially anonymous, then everyone could know exactly how everyone else is spending their money. That doesn't sound like a great financial system to me... It is my belief that price stability will come with adoption. As more and more people begin using Bitcoin, the price will become more and more stable. I'd say with mass adoption, we'd see stability come close to that of Gold. I could be completely wrong - I am no expert - but this is what I currently believe we will see happen. |
|
|
|
- Generate new bitcoins proportionally to the volume of transactions and distribute the new coins proportionately to existing holders of bitcoins; the whole mining thing is pointless and destabilizing.
Please do explain what the point of distributing new coins proportionately to existing holders of coins? It's the equivalent of changing the decimal place and claiming you are 10 times richer because of it. For how smart you claim to be, you sure are disappointing me with your "solutions". I assume coins would be split so there are more in circulation. Yes it's exactly the same as moving the decimal place as far as value is concerned but it's still done by major companies all the time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_splitI thought stock splits were done mostly for psychological reasons? Because stocks can be traded in fractions, can they not? |
|
|
|
The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.
Not really. Just expensive enough so SD is not viable. Say, 0.03 or so. For a moderate quantity it's not expensive. For micropayments, BTC is never going to scale to global scale as to accommodate micropayments. It's simple math really... I don't think BTC is ready for fees so high. That's going to shut out a lot of commerce, not just SD. It's going to force the evolution that will need to happen sooner or later anyway. Ripple or whatever other overlay system is required for micropayments. Free transactions in the blockchain are not going to last too long. I'm ok with fees. But $1.20 fee per transaction is too much. That said, it really doesn't matter what you or I think. The free market will always set a fair fee price based on the marginal cost per transaction and the willingness of users of the system to pay fees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
