The headline is kind of misleading. I'm not sure that anyone who'd considered the subject thought they were at all private if they used the system without tor. Bitcoin.org surely suggests no such thing.
Fair enough. The interesting part for me was Tor being easy to block. I have never heard that before. I guess I also found it surprising that it was worthy of a study at a cryptography/ security department. |
|
|
|
Honestly who uses the desktop client to send transactions anyway? Obviously this does not apply to services like coinbase, blockchain.info, etc. |
|
|
|
Those percentages are guesses right?
I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.
No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.
Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk. Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality. |
|
|
|
The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors. |
|
|
|
sub 300 you mean ? 1xx is a long way from here.
No, he means sub 200. And yes it is a long long way from here. Institutional investors will be buying hand over fist below 275. |
|
|
|
I get margin called on $341
What should I do? Cut losses, wait it out or close it at a higher price?
You really shouldn't be asking things like this on a forum. While chessnut has created this thread to offer his assistance, you continually try to ask for him to read a crystal ball and tell you how to trade your money. This thread isn't for that; it's to offer an additional view on the market for others to use in conjunction with their own methods. If you can't make these decisions on your own, you probably shouldn't be trading. My 2c  I know, I just need help this one time. You specifically make yourself a target as well by doing this. Chances are your not dealing with numbers large enough for any predatory whale to care, but in general it is a very bad idea. |
|
|
|
This price action is enough to assume we are in wave V to 2xx which couls take some weeks. Ill begin tracking soon.
50 thousand silk road bitcoins are being auctioned in early December. Could this have a massive effect on the price? http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/Very deep, patient pockets are likely to be picking them up (people like Tim draper, second market, Pantera etc). So no, I highly doubt it. |
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11206596/Dollar-smashes-through-resistance-as-mega-rally-gathers-pace.htmlDollar smashes through resistance as mega-rally gathers pace
HSBC says we are at the early stages of a dollar bull run that will change the world You heard it here first, but nice of AEP to confirm.  (New & Improved! Hat tip to da2ce7.)
The USD is entering the 'red giant' phase, having exhausted its primary fuel of gold and silver backing and now being powered by the less dense energy source of hydrocarbon hegemony. Although less productive, the economic bloat of malinvestment results in a higher apparent magnitude via the financialization process....
c'mon man. i've been calling for a USD rally and putting up this chart even before summer when i put up this interview of AEP by McAlvaney. can't find the post buried in this thread somewhere: http://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com/tag/ambrose-evans-pritchard/ the market is just insane. Are you actually navigating this nonsense? |
|
|
|
we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.
i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.
well, the fact of the matter is we do get it. we've flushed out alot right here in this thread. and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical. abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical. i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest. he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid". nice spin Luke. i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this. these guys don't get it. Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin. now that's public service for you. one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin. maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes? Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now. this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.
Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it. evidence please? so you want to ignore the thrust of my post, the ethics of the situation? I dont actually see it as entirely unethical. If they were the ones that actually made the decision which code was run, then yes I would see it as a problem, but the fact is that the miners make the final call which they want to run and there will be plenty of time to vet the code before that happens. If they were to release something questionable, it simply wouldnt be accepted by the community and the old code would run until a better one would be found. |
|
|
|
we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.
i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.
well, the fact of the matter is we do get it. we've flushed out alot right here in this thread. and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical. abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical. i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest. he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid". nice spin Luke. i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this. these guys don't get it. Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin. now that's public service for you. one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin. maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes? Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now. this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.
Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it. |
|
|
|
I am not trolling, but so far what I've understood about EW is that it takes insane amount of work, and in the end it's never right. Ever....
So I ask you this, why still use it? MACD+RSI and some chart patterns seem to work infinitely better than this.
thats actually not true. chessnut has been fairly successful with it here in this thread on a ridiculously low time frames (imo) which is pretty hard to do. Rynindaclem has another thread where he was pretty spot on and lucif (now masterluc) has been masterfully calling tops for years. it shouldnt be used alone IMO, but waves are very solid TA |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be something if it was found out to be a self running bot created by someone who died? It would be a dump routine if no input is made, it finds a price and dumps. It might be safer than leaving the account in a will. anyone think that 30k dump is caused by bitpay ? I guess some guy bought a luxury villa in manhattan  No, it was placed immediately after it fell below 300, similar to the manipulation tactics of old. If it was bitpay, it wouldnt have been a round number and it also wouldnt have taken the form of a wall, but rather a massive dump. Are you sure that the bitcoin was converted for the villa? |
|
|
|
-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).
This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it? Isn't it a bit like saying: "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline". Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer". A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself. It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place. Still... jumping the gun. Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather. Is there a delivery date with committed features even? This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money". We will see. This is the speculation forum after all  |
|
|
|
-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).
This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it? Isn't it a bit like saying: "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline". Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer". A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself. It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place. |
|
|
|
The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction. (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.) The 'someone' is not the user. Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature. It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine. 'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.
A solution would be monster transaction fees. But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?
Sidechains to the rescue. They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction. This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.
bingo. nice post. |
|
|
|
It isn't baseless. I observe that both the most successful alt by market cap (LTC) and the most successful alt by transaction volume and expansion of the crypto demographic (DOGE) have essentially no feature differentiation form BTC. The ability to create side chains that does little to nothing to reduce the appeal of these.
But my bigger point really is that none of these are that interesting, compared to improving Bitcoin and better competing with fiat. Monero has 0.1% of Bitcoin's market cap. That's seriously the reason for side chains?! It had better not be.
Litecoin was successful because for awhile there was no innovation in alts. People drew a comparison of silver to gold. Doge was an insanely successful meme. Both have gone through their ideological usefulness and are now slowly dying once people realized how dumb it was to put money in them in the first place. The point with sidechains is not to capitalize on the existing feature sets of the alts (anonymity, transaction time, etc), but to capture the future potential feature sets (turing complete + who knows what 3.0 will be...). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
