The non existance inflation in the bitcoin is a problem for some people, which was solved with several altcoins in the past years the dogecoin. Some believe that price Inflation is necessary, so people spend the bitcoins altcoins in investing and not keeping it without use. Giving interest to the people, when they deside to borrow it, so other can invest and not keeping it under the pillow again. I guess some of the transactions will be made with Altcoins - anyway, because they are faster to confirm, although not faster to safely confirm...
What about these corrections? |
|
|
|
Volatility of Bitcoin price is not a problem for the ones who do not care about fiat and gold.  |
|
|
|
This answers my last question above. It's quite possible that Newsweek is now the new National Inquirer. Therefore he is not THE Satoshi Nakamoto. Irony: I hope true Satoshi Nakamoto would never lie in any circumstances, even in the sake of saving his own life. :Irony  |
|
|
|
I vote for raising the block reward from 25 coins to 25,000 coins in order to inflate the value of the coins from preminers and thieves.
You get my vote for the dumbest person of 2014. Satoshi could have prevented such measure by giving each coin a vote (Proof of Stake), but instead each client and miner has a vote which is possible to manipulate, aka 51% attack. Performing a 51% attack to change the protocol of bitcoin is not easy, but possible if Federal Reserve would like to control the monetary policy of bitcoin They just have to invest a few hundred million dollars in mining equipment. 51% of hashing power wont allow you to change block reward (nor will 90% of hashing power or 99% of hashing power). |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
New to bitcoin mining. Joined slush's pool. This is just kinda something im playing with and dont expect to make any real money off of it. Currently running m gpu and getting about 75 Mhash/s. I dont really want to continue to use my GPU to mine. I was looking into ASICMiner Block Erupter 335 mh/s for around 25 dollars used. My question is are there any compatibility issues i will have with these or should it just be a plug in and mine type of deal? Like i said, i dont expect to make money just playing around, not trying to invest a couple grand into a unit to hash for me.
Thanks. Red
You should not have any compatibility issues. It is essentially plug and hash. But it depends on the software. |
|
|
|
|
This fork would not replace Bitcoin, but it would coexist with it. Many people will move, subdue to government control and in time will be robbed by government "for he greater good". Some will see this coming, return to original Bitcoin, maybe even avoid any loss at all. Others would stay and loose.
Maybe the government fork would offer good ratio between freedom/privacy and security and would work just fine (for some people).
|
|
|
|
Not yet, there is a planned number that's not yet reached... Do you really think satoshi would have imagined that bitcoin would reach $1000 when he first started? IF he had a planned number, im pretty sure we have already reached it. Are you telling me that it even doesn't make sense to Satoshi that bitcoins price is this high? Depends on your view. Do you really think that satoshi thought bitcoin would go to $1000 when he started at $0? I think that Satoshi thought that bitcoin will go to $1000 and not stop there. I thing that Satoshi estimated bitcoin maximum final price to be either $160 000 (replacing annual VISA volume) or $330 000 (replacing gold) or $800 000 (replacing USA GNP). He did not estimate bitcoin to go over $4 500 000 (If all the world economy was converted to bitcoins.). |
|
|
|
Add: Megacoin, Worldcoin & Quarkcoin please.
no plans do you have any plans to add any new coins in the immediate future? Thanks, Add new coins do not plan to. I think this is not a good long term strategy. The world has changed and Terracoin and Feathercoin could be wiped out with good other coins. I know you're making good profits with Bitcoin and Litecoin and probably don't care about the rest, but there are also innovative other exchanges, that will steal you you're market share, if you don't move on with new coins. That is the problem. There are (maybe too many) exchanges offering multitude of various cryptocoins. Let them coexist with "simple exchanges" focusing only on the most important* coins. Some people prefer NOT to have every new coin on exchange, some people even opose some specific coins. Let them have a choice. * - Which coins are "the most important" is a matter of debate, of course. |
|
|
|
The problem is that insurance can be set with wrong parameters. Eg. too high insurance for too low risk. And it is everybody's task to decide what the right balance is. Not for some central "right balance" to be enforced (either by dictator, commission or democratic vote).
Yes, this is certainly one issue. I think un_ordinateur is accepting this setback as being outweighed by the benefit of reducing the risk of civil unrest. By the way ZephramC. May I ask: Are you an anarchist or more of a minarchist? I am more of a minarchist, perhaps classical liberal or something between liberal and libertarian. |
|
|
|
|
Also, there are many prices, many goods. Some might increase while others might decrease or stay stable at the same time. This is the problem with "inflation = price inflation". Which prices do you take in account? You might create some basket of goods or speak about "general price level", but it will never suit all consumers.
|
|
|
|
yes as it was already written it would be the end of Bitcoin! It will loose it's function - it will loose its liquidity
True, but I'm not worried. The real reason why no one can own all the coins is me. Like a lot of you I would demand quite a price to be bought out completely. My coins are worth $12,000 per coin. Take it or leave it.  Some people will never sell their bitcoins so cheap |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's cryptographic trust model seems to place too much trust in cryptography and too little acceptance of reality. Network and user security is a virtual wild west and likely forever will be. The moment a device is connected to a network, it is vulnerable to intrusion. That in itself is where the breakdown in trust starts. Black and white hat hackers have been playing leapfrog for state-of-the-art since the beginning. As we continue to pour more of our lives into the ether this will go on.
The problem we keep seeing may not be with the protocol itself, but the implementations. Bad code interfacing with the protocol (ie. at an exchange), lax security update procedures, known OS holes, theft/'insolvency'... these all are real world barriers to the widespread acceptance of bitcoin.
A major drawback to the decentralized nature of bitcoin is that some very critical tasks (ie. security) are largely left up to the end user. Today this includes trolling these boards to stay on top of security issues, which exchanges/services/merchants are legit/solvent, keeping wallets up to date, etc. Mainstream Anytown, Anywhere doesn't have time for this. It's just money, we're used to taking these things for granted (and paying for it).
Will bitcoin ever get to the point where I can trust my grandma with her pension?
In time, there will be businesses in BTC world offering some level of insurance and trust for a price (both monetary price and price in losing of some freedom for security). |
|
|
|
|
There is monetary inflation (increase in amount of money) And there is price inflation (increase in prices represented in money terms).
Monetary inflation if it is higher than "goods inflation" usually leads to price inflation.
If the amount of available money increases relative to the amount of goods then the prices will rise.
This can happen in several ways.
- Someone prints big amount of new banknotes and release them into economy.
- Someone creates new money as electronic record (database entries) in big numbers.
- Someone decreases interest rate so new debts flourish.
- In gold era, big amount of gold/silver is discovered and brought in.
- Coins are remelted, content of gold/silver decreased and re-minted in increased amount.
- Quality or amount of goods somehow decreases and amount of money remains the same.
It helps to imagine these causes magnified and think about consequences.
What would happen if everyone finds 10 000 000 USD under his bed tomorrow morning? What would merchants do? What would workers do?
What would happen if 90% of houses/cars/food/computers simply disappear tomorrow? What would you do with your car/food/house? How would you price it (in terms of not-disappeared money)?
What would happen if gold meteorite explodes in Earth atmosphere and large areas are are sprinkled with several thousand tones of gold nuggets?
Inflation does not start from single cause. They are occurring together.
|
|
|
|
|
If it is really everybody's well-being which is in stake, why do not leave insurance voluntary? All will insure themselves in a moment when they see the "clear and indisputable advantage." in insuring
... The problem is that insurance can be set with wrong parameters. Eg. too high insurance for too low risk. And it is everybody's task to decide what the right balance is. Not for some central "right balance" to be enforced (either by dictator, commission or democratic vote).
Should smoking ban, drugs ban, suicide ban, etc. also be enforced "for the well-being" of all?
|
|
|
|
If satoshi moved his coins the market would go into a panic. That would be the worst idea in the world for him to do.
Yes it would force a price drop, but theoretically it only dilutes the coins out there by 10%, so in practice price would only drop by more than 10% for as long as it took the market to absorb the extra 10% into normal daily turnover. (A few days to a month perhaps). Corporations do this all the time when they issue additional stock, so his holdings are NOT a systemic risk to the BTC economy. In practice by 10%?  You do realize that 1M BTC would destroy the market to sub $100 or even $1? Do you realize that more than 1M BTC was traded in December 2013 only? |
|
|
|
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.
Lily Sloane: No money? You mean, you don't get paid?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.
Even in the post-scarcity United Federation of Planets, there is still a scarcity of time, which cannot simply be replicated. Joseph Sisko only serves so many meals each day and only has so many tables at Sisko's Creole Kitchen in New Orleans. If you want a reservation there, you may have to part with something dear to you in exchange for it. It may not be money — it may be your time or a product of your unique talents — but it's still trade, commerce. There is still scarcity in that world. You will never go hungry, but not everyone gets a starship. And also people are scare. Lets say everyone want to be treted by Beverly Crusher (hey, she is one of the best doctors in the Federation!). But there is only one Beverly Crusher. And land is scare. There are still wars for territory. Not anymore they don't. No sir! I mean... interspecies wars. Not within UFP. |
|
|
|
Having 1 million btc is a complete obscenity.
He should start giving them away somehow.
He is not the 1% but the 0.000001% Warren Buffet is broke compared to satoshi (talking about wealth percentage)
What do you think?
I think he deserves all of it. And I strongly believe he should be free to to anything he wants with these coins. Such as: nothing, donating them to the poor, donating them to the super-rich, use them to support megacorporations, use them to support new BTC bussiness, fund space exploration, fight global warming, support global warming... He can even buy several hundred tones of food and medicine and then slowly burn this pile in front of starving children in Africa (also paying sizable armed protection from hungry envious mob who would "know better what to do with property of others"). So after this "He should be free to to anything he wants with these coins." I have some suggestions for him: Use the coins to increase Bitcoin adoption, stabilize its use and guard its core principles. |
|
|
|
|
Also, people whose addresses would be unjustly blocked by OP solution shall have no obligation to prove their innocence, provide any evidence or identification.
Violating fungibility is a bad idea. Some things in fiat world considered "ethical" and "just" (and enforced even on those who disagree with "inevitable truth of such ethic") are simply algorithmically prohibited (or complicated tremendously) by Bitcoin protocol. This is not a bug, but it is a feature of Bitcoin and one of the reasons of its success.
|
|
|
|
yes limited supply, besides theres always litecoin for back up
Reports about gold being limited supply are greatly exaggerated, there is plenty of silver for back up (and copper and iron and aluminum). |
|
|
|
But claiming that, by design, Bitcoin's higher goal is to get rid of fractionnal banking seems like a stretch to me. If anything, I believe that the first and foremost design goal of Bitcoin is to give back to the people the power to hold their money and the freedom to deal with it as they see fit. Remove that power from banks and governments. Bitcoin cannot prevent people from operating fractionnal reserve buisnesses (but I makes more difficult for a buisness to claim that it doesn't when it does).
Well put. I fully support the freedom of people to engage in fractional reserve banking. All I object to is the government confiscating my money and using it to guarantee such deposits. I agree. Not only government but also any other group, NGO, corporation, public referendum, common good, criminal organization, ... (Shall not have the power to guarantee such deposits. And Bitcoin makes this much more possible.) What do you make of the will of the People? If a majority of the citizens of the United States (for example), wishes that their deposit be guaranteed by their government, if a) Only deposits made at an US based company shall be guaranteed; b) The company is required to always keep at hand 10% of its deposits ready for withdrawal; c) They are ready to pay some taxes for that service. I'm not saying that the -current- government cares about the will of the people. I have not a real opinion on that; I'm not from the US. I'm more interested by the theorical possibility that a majority of the people dissagree with you; and be absolutely willing of something you seem to consider stupid. The way I see it, my opinion or your opinion is one of many. I might disagree with it, but I'll always accept that the will of the People trumps my will. (If that will is legitimately expressed in a fair vote) I need not to be idle about it either: I can spend time convincing people why I believe the current policy is wrong, and why it should be changed, hoping it will be in 10-20 years. Well. There are some things which should remain "unenforcebale" even by popular vote or "will of the People". Of course there will always be discussion which things this should be. Common example is that two wolves and a sheep can not vote "what is for dinner?". Some believe that by the same logic you can not have 100 people voting if 95 of them will (steal and) redistribute wealth of the remaining 5. Even if it is will of the (majority of) people. Some believe that you can not have (even "perfectly democratic") referendum about killing innocent man. If the majority of people wishes that their deposit to be guaranteed by their government they can do that. But this guarantee should not use money of the ones disagreeing. If I wish my deposit NOT to be guaranteed (perhaps because I believe that this offers greater profit with acceptable risk) and there is a company which will grant me this wish and provide me this service then by what right do other people force us to change this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
