Eventually, it will reach a high level of adoption and then investing in bitcoins will be no more profitable than investing in any other widely used currency.

For starters, the real solution to y² = x³+7 when x = y is -1.63109... I know that doesn't help, but I had fun looking it up.

I'm curious about what you think might be wrong with that scenario. Why would it be a problem?

Regardless, we already have computer-driven payments. When Netflix wants to charge you, they don't have a person that calls up the credit card company. It is all done by computer.

Many of my bills are handled completely by computers. The power company's computer figures out how much I owe and sends a payment request to my bank's computer. Then, my bank's computer does an ACH transaction with the computer at the power company's bank and the money is transferred. Finally, the computer at the power company's bank tells the computer at the power company that my bill has been paid. All of this is done without any human involvement.

The details in your question are not clear to me, but in general, the feasibility of "physical" bitcoins as a currency has been explored in the past. Initially, it seems like a good idea, but so far it has not been shown to be practical -- primarily because of the cost of making the physical currency.

Now, physical bitcoins are bought by collectors. You can take a look at the marketplace for physical bitcoins here: Economy > Marketplace > Goods > Collectibles

A file filled with 20's when it should have real data looks a lot like the file is corrupted, or perhaps there was an attempt to recover a deleted file. Either way, the original data is gone.

The problem is not just trust. If everyone is running the same software then there is a risk of a serious bug that could take down the entire network. With multiple implementations, that risk is limited.

A Ponzi scheme is a specific kind of scam in which the scammer pretends to invest a victim's money but keeps it instead. The scam is kept going by pretending to pay returns, but using invested money instead of actual returns.

Bitcoin itself cannot be a ponzi because it does not generate returns, nobody is running it, and it is 100% transparent.

You say it is based on probability and statistics, and perhaps you actually believe that. But can you show me?

Looks like the normal paper won't even last a year.

If you buy all at once, then you will be sorry if the price goes down. But, if you don't buy all at once, then you will be sorry if the price goes up. So, since you believe that the price is going up (at least in the long run), you are likely to do better if you buy all at once.

That's the opposite of DCA.

Here's what I think about value.

I think the subject of value is complicated. I argue that intrinsic value cannot exist because all value is subjective and intrinsic value implies the existence of objective value.

If you allow that intrinsic value exists, then all three of those things have intrinsic value. Money has intrinsic value based on its utility, and a peach has intrinsic value due to it nourishment.

Something with extrinsic value derives its value from something else. All three have extrinsic value, too. Money has extrinsic value based on what it can buy. A peach has extrinsic value because it can be used to grow more peaches.

If you are referring to SHA-1, it was cracked many years ago (Announcing the first SHA1 collision). I haven't seen information about any others.

Why don't you start by providing the source of your information?

It's probably such a small portion of their business that I doubt they do anything. It's just a balance that happens to be positive. It's not like they think, "hey we've got some extra money here".


If your balance is paid off every month, I think it does help you credit score. Beyond that, I doubt a positive balance will have any effect.

The nonce is not added to the previous block header.


The miner varies the nonce (as well as other values in the header) until the hash of the header is less than or equal to the target value. The nonce in a block's header is that nonce.

Technical Analysis is astrology for traders. It is dressed up to look like a science, but it is really just based on myth, fantasy, wishful thinking, and confirmation bias.

People who promote Technical Analysis are just trying to extract money from the fools who will believe anything they see, or at best they are trying to impress people with their fake expertise.

The solution is simple. Just buy less often. The optimal frequency is every time you get paid, but if that is too often then do it every other time, or perhaps even something like 4 times a year. In the long run, it doesn't matter.

Investing in bitcoins is not yet a zero-sum game. As long as the value of a bitcoin continues to rise, everyone can be a winner (though some more than others).

However, when Bitcoin has reached full adoption and there is no more gain in value, then bitcoins will no longer be profitable for anyone but the traders.

Let's be clear. 1. All private keys already "exist". The question is whether or not a key is in use. 2. Everyone here knows that a collision is not "impossible". The reason that people say that a collision is "impossible" is that it is so "improbable" that it is indistinguishable from "impossible", so the word "impossible" is a good choice for practical reasons.

I'm sure you already know all this, but I'm just clarifying.

Another possibility is that he has a lot of small UTXOs and the fee to spend them is very high.