Not exactly e is quite unique in this matter, it's not really about the growth rate but rather about the "divisibility" of the currency in regards to spending. Base 2 is the second best choice for a physical currency, best is 3 however in our case we can exploit the base e which for a physical currency is just a idealistic assumption but in our case a practical possibility.
That sounds very vague to me. How does base e make a cryptocurrency more divisible than base 2? If the value/block was increasing and the target spacing was staying the same then you would have exponentially more coins as the difficulty increased.
I assumed you would have the target spacing decrease so there was a constant number coins being produced.
No, I'm not trying to make production either exponential or constant. If I wanted exponential I would use a linear relationship between reward and difficulty, like 1 coin per point of difficulty. If I wanted constant I would just make the reward 50 coins forever and be done with it. Yes, that's what I'm saying. If you have one block every ten minutes, then you have one block every ten minutes. If the difficulty goes up, then you have more coins/block, but still one block every ten minutes. This means that you either expect the difficulty to stay constant, or to go down. Otherwise you will have an exponentially increasing number of coins. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to confirm that OP is sending me coins.
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks the rabbit hole part is a little corny?
|
|
|
|
|
Like Dado
19n1v7ZJj1Qav6VMq4oEbqKgi3VhZqjNn8
|
|
|
|
As a newbie to Bitcoins the thing I find most frustrating is finding out where to buy. Yes I know there are exchanges Mt Gox, Tradehill ... However I went to buy from Mt Gox (buying from Australia) only to find out their Australian bank account was closed pending fraud allegations. I went over to Tradehill to purchase only to find a few paragraphs on how Australian authorities want full verification (100 point ID) to withdraw funds.
Does anyone know where I can reliably purchase Bitcoins without going through red-tape, or paying exorbitant bank fees?
I'm willing to purchase via PayPal, MoneyBookers, Western Union, Australian bank transfer, or Cash.
Without new buyers for Bitcoins prices are doomed.
How much would you be willing to send in cash? |
|
|
|
Thinkgeek.com is the obvious choice.
Unfortunately, thinkgeek (Geeknet) only has a revenue in the millions, not 50-100million. |
|
|
|
Any alternate currency that tries to copy this "finite supply" principle is doomed
Why? It is like saying that you are a monotheist, but you also want to believe in another God than the pre-existing one, because the new God looks better. What? |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I cannot see a solution that would not involve an escrow service.
|
|
|
|
How would it change confirm times? nSubsidy and nTargetSpacing have nothing to do with each other.
If the value/block was increasing and the target spacing was staying the same then you would have exponentially more coins as the difficulty increased. I assumed you would have the target spacing decrease so there was a constant number coins being produced. |
|
|
|
|
Let me point out that there are many projects that help the world that aren't @home related, and many of which would allow you to confirm that there has been work regularly.
|
|
|
|
I was actually considering doing this when I read Bitcoin had 25 times the processing power of folding@home, making folding@home the second largest distributed computing project. Here are some things I thought about: - You would need to either have a
- A) a project that has very many proof of works generated per arbitrary time unit. This would mean you could take the hash of the "answer" or whatever your computer discovered for the project, the merkle root, the previous hash, etc. and it would have to be a small range of hashes based on the difficulty.
- B) a project that doesn't have very many proof of works per arbitrary time unit and you would have a slow confirmation time. For this option, you might actually want to either select a few of these "answers" based on how small the hash is, or if you want faster transactions, you could make it accept all "answers"
Your "answers" would have to be verifiable as correct, you would also have to show that this "answer" is new, not someone elses answer. Otherwise someone could just make a database of all the previous solutions and go strait through the "problems" to find a good hash without helping *@home at all - This is optional, but I would assume the community would want the coin to be decentralized, so *@home would NOT be allowed to determine ANYTHING
- The project would have to be able to get help from "miners" without changing the "problem", if they could change the problem then it would once again, not be centralized.
Here is a list of those projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projectsEdit: If you are interested in this, you should look for *@home projects' algorithms that return "answers" quickly. Another note: You would probably want the "answers" to the "problems" to be public so they are actually useful. The only way I can see this being done is if you were awarded coins every time a solution is found in an amount inverse to the difficulty (and possibly make block finding separate and give block finders transaction fees) |
|
|
|
|
This would change confirm times, but if confirm times were quick like with Geist Geld then it could work well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would have to be a linear relationship between difficulty and coin/block rather than exponential like you have in that chart. Otherwise you would the number of blocks/(arbitrary time unit) go down exponentially.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for bumping the thread guys. Now I can laugh at OP.
|
|
|
|
The first stage of Operation DeltaMine is successful. The information we have received from the breaking of the algorithmic pattern is slowly becoming more prevalent. It is unknown how long the signal transmission we have received will take to fully decode, but from appearances so far, it may be hostile. The information we have received from the breaking of the algorithmic pattern is slowly becoming more prevalent. breaking SHA256 Are you fucking serious? |
|
|
|
|
This survey will be biased because people taking it are on a bitcoin dedicated forum.
|
|
|
|
|
I would use this if it weren't for the fact that asks for name and email and involves bitcoin transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all, I am t3a and I have done very little with bitcoins (just a few transactions)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
