|
If you control all the machines, you don't need to install a pool. Just run the miner on each machine and have them transfer any generated bitcoins to a single address.
My guess is you'll get fired in a matter of weeks, just long enough for your employer to see the increase in its electricity bill.
|
|
|
|
No. A double-spending would not work this way. The timestamp server would sign two transactions but will just wait a bit to publish the oldest one. It will do as if there had been some network latency. There is no way the other nodes can prove it was not honest.
I think I didn't make myself clear. The chain of transactions must always be in a consistent state, i.e. no address can have a negative balance. Every node can verify the chain is in a consistent state. If the time-stamping server signs a transaction that puts the chain in an inconsistent state, then the server is rejected by the network. So a double-spend isn't really possible without invalidating the chain a copy of which is stored on every node. Well, I don't know. Maybe it's possible. But it is surely trickier than what you seem to think. For instance, say indeed some node sees an inconsistent entry in the table. It has to tell every one. They all have to check the accusation is true and then they all have to decide to ban the bad timestamp server, revoke its previous transactions (how many??), chose a new one and so on. An ugly mess for sure. |
|
|
|
That's how your heart works, for instance -- no one cell sets the pulse. Crickets do the same thing.
Hum... sounds interesting. Any source/documentation about that? |
|
|
|
A copy of the chain of transactions will be stored on every node. If the time-stamping server attempts to double-spend, then it will have to modify the immutable chain of transactions, and that attempt will be rejected by the network of nodes, since each node will be able to see that the server is trying to assign a different order number to a transaction it has previously signed.
No. A double-spending would not work this way. The timestamp server would sign two transactions but will just wait a bit to publish the oldest one. It will do as if there had been some network latency. There is no way the other nodes can prove it was not honnest. Since the job of the time-stamping server is easy, it would be trivial to set one up.
setting one up is easy, sure. But the tricky part is to chose one and to convince everyone to use the same. And the solution again would be to chose a new server if the current one starts behaving badly.
Bitcoin choses a new server every ten minutes or so, without having to wait for it to behave badly. This is much better. |
|
|
|
Besides, a system based on a centralized time-stamping server would not be yet another centralized system. All centralized monetary systems are currently able to inflate their currency, whereas with the centralized time-stamping system the central entity will not be able to create new money. That will be it's only advantage.
It's not a totally bad idea. Whom would new money be given to, though? Also, even if the time-stamping server could not steal money or create new one, it would still have the power to double spend. So it would be difficult to obtain a consensus about who is trustworthy enough to get this power. So to speak bitcoin IS a system with centralized time server. But the server changes every ten minutes or so. So somehow, bitcoin is already an extreme version of what you are suggesting. |
|
|
|
Moi j'ai un compte particulier et j'utilise weboob pour consulter la liste de mes virements. Ce projet est intéressant mais demande pas mal de développement en python si vous voulez l'améliorer et donner plus de possibilités. À l'heure actuelle, il ne permet pas encore de faire des virements mais ça n'est pas impossible en théorie. PS. ah par contre le site de la CIC n'est pas supporté pour l'instant  |
|
|
|
|
Tout à fait, stormtrooper.
Mais bon avec les bitcoins c'est un peu chaud quand même. Parce que retirer ses bitcoins c'est nettement plus facile que de retirer du cash ou de l'or.
Donc amha le système de réserve fractionnaire est possible, mais avec un taux de réserve nettement plus élevé. Plutôt de l'ordre de 90% que de 10% par exemple. Seule une analyse statistique détaillée du comportement des clients (leur propension à préférer stocker eux-mêmes leurs bitcoins plutôt que de les confier à une banque) peut permettre de choisir un taux de réserve viable.
|
|
|
|
|
You do realize that only Mc Donald's Cie can peg a currency to a big mac, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Attention: un moyen de paiement n'est pas une devise monétaire.
D'après ce que je lis dans cet article le système proposé par google repose d'abord sur un équipement matériel, en l'occurence une puce dite sans contact (Nier Field Communication).
Amha un smartphone doté d'un client bitcoin pourrait trouver une telle puce utile. Ce serait sûrement plus rapide que de chercher un accès internet par Wifi, bluetooth ou 3G.
|
|
|
|
What would the purpose of the new digital currency be? The main purpose would be to create a currency that was stable when it comes to inflation and deflation. So that prices for goods and services in the new digital currency would remain very stable over time.
Prices don't have to be stable. They have to reflect economic reality. Trying to cheat with price signals does nothing good for the economy, and it defeats the purpose of the very concept of price. |
|
|
|
Another purpose would be to create a convenient level of the value of the new current. With bitcoins the price in the future for say a cup of coffee could be something like 0.0000032 BTC. That can be a bit unpractical.
0.00000032 BTC = 0.32 µBTC = 320 nBTC |
|
|
|
The value in BCs is:
-It can't be stopped.
-It can be very transparent.
Just make the growth transparent and allow the miners to continue to mine based on a very open algorithm. The algorithm would need to be perfected over time but it would be very transparent in doing this.
You totally missed my point but whatever. I'll just translate it in simple words and apply it to answer your post: Just do it man. Just chose your algorithm, find a name for your currency and start using it. Please do it already so we can have peace and spread the world about it. But please don't mind if I stick to bitcoins, ok? |
|
|
|
1. defending against force is frequently more expensive.
2. and anyone building a building should budget against a competitor sending a guy with a wrecking ball. obtaining sufficient capital to defend against force from an established competitor in a market with non-negligible entry costs is very unlikely to be possible.
Your proposal to avoid defending against force is to create a law. But a law is merely force we all pay for. So your idea comes down to making others pay for the force required to defend your private, for profit venture. Exactly. Using force to defend property is expensive for sure. But having the State do it, doesn't make it free. It just makes everybody pay for everyone. It's certainly not moral, and probably not even efficient. |
|
|
|
People don't seem to understand the distinction between a monopoly attained by force and one attained by providing the best service or product, which is a BIG distinction.
and your belief that the holder of a monopoly obtained by providing the best service or product will not resort to force when threatened by a competitor providing a better product or service, and thereby eliminating your distinction, is based on what exactly? it is based on the fact that people have to be judged for they actually do, not for what you think they might do in some particular circumstances. |
|
|
|
I have nothing against any of these practices. Example: so called price fixing: « where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market. » There is nothing against free market in companies "colluding" to set prices. They basically come to a agreement about their prices, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they don't use force to prevent other people to sell at a lower price. There is a nice video of Walter Block I think, where he mocks that by comparing it to a joke about three guys in a russian prison. The first guy is asked why he is here and he answered: - it's because I had an appointment and I arrived too late. The second guy said: - I didn't want to be late so I was there much earlier but they said it wasn't good too. Then the third guy said: - I arrived at the exact time and they said I had some secret arrangement to collude with the others in order to be there at the exact time, so it wasn't good either. Price regulation rules are just as ridiculous. |
|
|
|
This is nothing but an other version of " they took our job" whining. It's annoying as hell.  I don't give a crap about the reasons why someone suddenly starts to sell things at a ridiculously low price. It is a given and it is outrageous to complain about that. Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do. And if they have to shut down, be it. This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market. |
|
|
|
Relative to the overall population of internet users, [Bitcoin.org's] audience tends to be male; it also appeals more to childless, low-income users under the age of 35 who browse from home.
How on earth are they supposed to know that just from an IP address? |
|
|
|
That's not how monopolies work, they tend not to be run by complete idiots. They raise their prices alright, but not so high as to beg some cocky upstart new-comer to slit their throats.
Any price above what the market will bear leaves room for competition. If they are a monopoly and they price their goods or services exactly at market prices, what's the problem? I can't believe he admitted that! Completely undercuts his case. Is it me or this debate is going through an endless loop? http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6775.msg99364#msg99364Personally I don't understand what's this concern of yours about monopolies. If a monopoly is not enforced per violence, who cares? A monopoly is fine if it emerges from market forces, and market forces only. It just satisfies demand better. Somehow, it is nothing but an extreme version of the labour specialization concept. Now, say a company uses its cash to dump its prices below production costs, in order to crush competition. So basically it's just like this company was offering some stuffs to people. How can that be a bad thing? If you think it's not fair for the competition, you are just wrong. The other companies can just stop producing/selling. Say I build a product with some producing cost. If an other company starts selling the same product below this production cost, what's even the point of producing for me, now? Hell, I could as well just buy the other company's production! Being capable of stopping production should be important for a company. Otherwise it's just silly. Free market just makes this clearer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
