No you cannot.
Do you mean *NOW* you cannot? I only warned people because I *saw* someone elses email address and responses. I removed the email field. That was an optional field which was removed after I figured out it was all publicly available. All questions are optional on the survey. It is anonymous like a forum poll (unless you put your name in a field or something).
*WHEN* did you remove it? After my message? Do I have to go and fill it out again to check? |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to warn people that the survey responses are currently public - you can see the email address of other respondents and how they answered.
That's really... not very nice.
|
|
|
|
Slashdot picks up on the recent 'On Bitcoin and Red Balloons' paper - but the submitter goes for a more dramatic title. I know slashdot loves to hate bitcoin - but 'flaw in the protocol' is a bit of a stretch for what seems more like a suggestion for a potential optimisation. |
|
|
|
IMTFI INSTITUTE FOR MONEY, TECHNOLOGY & FINANCIAL INCLUSION Funny Money Roundup 2011-11-14 http://blog.imtfi.uci.edu/2011/11/funny-money-roundup.html... Remember bitcoin? Yeah, us too. Some seem to think that the bubble has burst, and, indeed, the value of a bitcoin has dropped over the past several months to under US$2 from a high of over US$30. But the bitcoin phenomenon offers a fascinating window onto debates about the value of money, the role of government, as well as complementary, alternative, and crypto-currencies. ... |
|
|
|
|
If it is, it's an overreaction.
It's possible someone doesn't understand that while the wallet encryption issue is important, it's not a problem with the bitcoin protocol or overall network security.
You'd think someone with so many bitcoins would take the time to understand this though - so it seems a little unlikely to me that this is the reason.
If it wasn't a panic kneejerk reaction to the wallet issue, then the seller presumably either needed their local currency in a real hurry and so couldn't wait to maximize their return by selling more slowly, or they actually wanted the bitcoin price to jump down quickly.
|
|
|
|
Working Paper (pdf) On Bitcoin and Red Balloons 2011-11-02 Moshe Babaioff, Shahar Dobzinski, Sigal Oren, and Aviv Zohar. https://sites.google.com/site/dobzin/papers/bitcoin.pdf?attredirects=0Abstract We study scenarios in which the goal is to ensure that some information will propagate through a large network of nodes. In these scenarios all nodes that are aware of the information compete for the same prize, and thus have an incentive not to propagate information. One example for such a scenario is the 2009 DARPA Network Challenge (finding red balloons). We give special attention to a second domain, Bitcoin, a decentralized electronic currency system. Bitcoin, which has been getting a large amount of public attention over the last year, represents a radical new approach to monetary systems which has appeared in policy discussions and in the popular press [3, 11]. Its cryptographic fundamentals have largely held up even as its usage has become increasingly widespread. We find, however, that it exhibits a fundamental problem of a di®erent nature, based on how its incentives are structured. We propose a modification to the protocol that can fix this problem. Bitcoin relies on a peer-to-peer network to track transactions that are performed with the currency. For this purpose, every transaction a node learns about should be transmitted to its neighbors in the network. As the protocol is currently defined and implemented, it does not provide an incentive for nodes to broadcast transactions they are aware of. In fact, it provides a strong incentive not to do so. Our solution is to augment the protocol with a scheme that rewards information propagation. We show that our proposed scheme succeeds in setting the correct incentives, that it is Sybil-proof, and that it requires only a small payment overhead, all this is achieved with iterated elimination of dominated strategies. We provide lower bounds on the overhead that is required to implement schemes with the stronger solution concept of Dominant Strategies, indicating that such schemes might be impractical. This paper is also available on Microsoft Resarch: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=156072(At least 2 of the authors are researchers at Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley) |
|
|
|
Lance Fortnow: Professor Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Northwestern University McCormick School of Engineering |
|
|
|
Introducing Bitcoin electronic currency support!
2011-11-07
Use one of the most anonymous peer-to-peeer digital currency as a direct deposit to fund your OKPAY account.
https://www.okpay.com/en/company/news/okpay-bitcoin.htmlOKPAY is already listed as a way to deposit funds to TradeHill.. but what does the above announcement actually mean? Is OKPAY on it's way to becoming a sort of bitcoin exchange by doing this? It's not clear to me how conversion between currencies at OKPAY is done... but if I'm reading this right it's now possible to sell BTC using only OKPAY. Does anyone here use the OKPAY service? I'm wondering if it also allows converting other wallet currencies into BTC? It also seems that once you've set up a verified account - this would be a way (in conjunction with TradeHill) to purchase BTC via credit card. |
|
|
|
when the ISP guy came to install my internet i told him to go check out "what is bitcoin" on youtube  He works at an ISP, how could he not have seen all those bitcoins floating by? it would seem lots of poeple have missed the bitcoins floating by Yep. Just last week I ran into a young guy studying IT who had never heard of it. If it's still not on a lot of IT people's radar - then it's really still quite an underground thing. |
|
|
|
I always read it as 'casashious'.
I just think it's a dumb name.
I like it if it's pronounced my way :/ Let's just call them Cash-Ass coins as a nod to buttcoin  You're a genius. I wonder if we should rename dialcoin to dialdiarrhea. Well DiarrheaCoin would certainly imply a fast, slick service. |
|
|
|
I always read it as 'casashious'.
I just think it's a dumb name.
I like it if it's pronounced my way :/ Let's just call them Cash-Ass coins as a nod to buttcoin |
|
|
|
Change the name though, because I have no idea how to pronounce this.
+1 +1 I thought I knew how to pronounce this - until I saw the video with Plato and Casascius at the gas station, where Plato pronounced it: kasaysh-ee-us - ie the first a is as in 'cat' and the second a is as in 'baby' As casascius didn't comment when Plato pronounced it that way.. I guess that's the correct way  I would have pronounced it 'kasask-ee-us' - where both 'a's are pronounced as in 'cat'. |
|
|
|
My proposal is that the system simply place a rate limit on how quickly old unmoved coins can be spent. NO This is so idiot and ridicolous in so many ways that probably i don't have enough space to write ALL the reasons  It's partly a defensive response to the far worse idea of 'invalidating' or 'recycling' old unmoved coins which seems to resurrect itself zombie like. In a way I'm glad there is some revulsion to the rate limiting idea too - It gives me hope that the invalidation idea would never get a majority vote amongst developers/miners/users. I suspect that my proposal would fail primarily in that it's probably not that common that a stash 'large enough to affect the economy' would be lost (and found) in a single identifiable chunk anyway. |
|
|
|
It also provides an incentive for large holders of really old coins to 'refresh' them, but doesn't totally penalize by 'stealing' them if for some reason they can't. It would allow economists to better analyze the bitcoin economy, and the users to have more faith in it. (Huge stashes that haven't been moved in X decades 'probably' are lost - but even if not, won't suddenly inflate the money supply) if you put limits on spend amount, people would just make stack of wallets, each up to that limit so in the future they could spend them all at once if needed
It's not putting a limit on the spend amount for any ordinary user, or even any massive participant such as mtgox currently is. It's only if you let a huge stash get *many* years old - without ever having spent anything from it that it would kick in. This idea is too complex
I agree it would be complex to implement, and the value is debatable. Also - if the majority of coins are lost in small amounts by average users, it won't help that much in estimating how many coins were lost versus those just sitting in small long term savings. It may however allow some better estimations, and more confidence in the system. and violates the foundations of Bitcoin.
So development should stop? No more features/improvements even if the majority of miners/users were to agree? Which 'foundations' in particular do you feel are violated? |
|
|
|
If someone finds some old coins they'd be economically stupid to suddenly dump them all on the market and make their holdings worthless. And at most it would result in short term volatility, not long term instability.
In the situation where the world is running on some reduced fraction of the 21M supply due to years of presumed bitcoin destruction - it would be public knowledge the instant someone even bought a coffee using an old mega-stash. Whether or not the controller were intending to dump or spend with abandon, surely it would cause a sudden crash? This sort of sudden devaluation certainly seems to be people's concern, so wouldn't such a reintroduction rate-limiting system alleviate this fear and help provide confidence in bitcoin as a store of value? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
