Most of the bitcoin faboys don't care about technological developments in the field of finance. All they're interested in is wealth redistribution. To switch places with the current elite that is earning with interest, so they themselves could earn with deflation. They can't see that the endgame is about making the financial system more transparent, not about making it more anonymous. Anonymity is helping the crooks while transparency would help the society in general.
That is the reaso why I dispise the majority of bitcoin fanboys. A bunch of lazy and hypocritical crooks if you ask me.
It doesn't apply to everyone, but the majority is what it is.
You sir, respectfully are an idiot Disrespectfully would also work well here. |
|
|
|
Always keep one of your eyes on alternative cryptos that offer innovation.
While many p2p protocols are useful, cramming every app into a freaking currency is asinine. To be good enough as a currency to compete for the monopoly position of liquidity provider requires a laser focus on that specific end. Any added functions create a tax on the economy of the whole market. Liquidity abhors friction. There are other far better, far more efficient, far more honest ways to incentivize the maintenance of a block chain for your bittorrent or twitter or whatever. Any " innovations" that amount to embedding a tiny little lobotomized robotic Ben Bernanke into every computer on the Internet are quite unlikely to add any value. Like lifetime of the universe unlikely. You aren't going to improve chopsticks. You aren't going to improve the core function of liquidity - just make it efficiently usable. Any " innovation" that makes it less efficiently usable is a SCAM. Does this not beg the question? Or words to that effect. If you create a P2P currency and pile on lots of other features that restrict that function, that's a Bad Thing. If you create a platform for a digital economy and cash transfer happens to be one of the features that is leveraged for that ends, why is that a Bad Thing? Especially as useful functions are going to attract different people, thus bringing greater liquidity. That's the point of a programmable currency, the core system can stick to the KISS principle while allowing any amount of complex functions to be added externally. Some (a very few) of the alts have innovative features but nearly all of them can be implemented on top of Bitcoin and its by far the toughest network. This makes sense but I'm not familiar enough with the protocol to know whether including certain features would make building particular applications easier or more effective. It seems inelegant, for example, to build an application to enable instant transactions and real-time trading on top of the bitcoin protocol, due to the 10-minute block time. I'm still on the fence on this one, though in practice I suspect people will use the option that works out-of-the-box. There's the friction that occurs within the protocol/system itself and the friction that occurs between user and protocol. Your sig quote is one of my favourites, but sadly it's not one of mine. I've no idea where it comes from - couldn't find an original source. |
|
|
|
Always keep one of your eyes on alternative cryptos that offer innovation.
While many p2p protocols are useful, cramming every app into a freaking currency is asinine. To be good enough as a currency to compete for the monopoly position of liquidity provider requires a laser focus on that specific end. Any added functions create a tax on the economy of the whole market. Liquidity abhors friction. There are other far better, far more efficient, far more honest ways to incentivize the maintenance of a block chain for your bittorrent or twitter or whatever. Any " innovations" that amount to embedding a tiny little lobotomized robotic Ben Bernanke into every computer on the Internet are quite unlikely to add any value. Like lifetime of the universe unlikely. You aren't going to improve chopsticks. You aren't going to improve the core function of liquidity - just make it efficiently usable. Any " innovation" that makes it less efficiently usable is a SCAM. Does this not beg the question? Or words to that effect. If you create a P2P currency and pile on lots of other features that restrict that function, that's a Bad Thing. If you create a platform for a digital economy and cash transfer happens to be one of the features that is leveraged for that ends, why is that a Bad Thing? Especially as useful functions are going to attract different people, thus bringing greater liquidity. |
|
|
|
Cross-posting from NXTforum as I'm not sure I've got this right: https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-ring/msg54532/#msg54532The question is basically what's the shortest passphrase that's secure using only numerals. My original guess was 40 digits, but I think that's wrong because it doesn't take into account the public key generation, only the 128-bit limitation of the Curve function in creating the address. Failing that, what would the shortest secure base-32 key be (numbers and caps only)? |
|
|
|
Going to have to wait for a hint. But I did notice that The Bible Code was first published in 1997/1998 (wikipedia/amazon discrepancy). The original journal paper which inspired the book, was published in 1994. Interesting... I'll let people know when hints are published, though the time difference means you should check the site if you want to be sure to get them quickly. Like the others, this isn't a puzzle I expect people to solve without hints, but I've already seen some thoughts along the right lines. By the way, last time, a password cracker really gave some people an edge for filling in the gaps. This time, I'm hoping that custom software wouldn't provide much of an advantage. |
|
|
|
|
When do the squeezed longs become critical? Is there any way of telling?
|
|
|
|
Hi what are your rates per article i may be interested as atm i working at 0.015 btc for 2k words  ... ~$8.50. Afraid my rates are a little higher than that! Unless you meant 0.15? |
|
|
|
Done properly there's a big advantage. Since you're effectively hire-purchasing a house, you cannot ever be in negative equity. Naturally, most banks don't like the idea of shifting liability onto themselves, hence the interest-driven model prevails elsewhere.
I am sure it's not quite as simple as that. At the least the "bank" will charge extra to cover their risk. Then your house could still be worth less than you paid for it when all is done. I bet there's some hefty penalty clause for early termination too. "Properly" meaning according to the spirit of the law. Ijara mortgages tend to be slightly more expensive than regular ones, in any case - unless you are foreclosed, I imagine. I don't know the details, but they're not competitive financially with standard mortgages. Seems to me like the spirit of the law is already pretty heavily subverted just by making a profit from lending money. You can dress it up how you like but it's all the same when you peek under the covers. What there appears to be is a heavy effort to conform to the letter of the law. Yes: my understanding is that it's not carried out according to the spirit of the law, thus making it not-so-very-different to a traditional mortgage in either its payments or effects when things go wrong. |
|
|
|
Interesting tidbit for many here: "They make the obvious prediction that the Bitcoin will be sold for under-market value" Are you guys going to be flaming the Bitstamp owners now? Can someone on this subforum answer this one simple question, instead of completely ignoring it: Q: In a closed door auction, where no one outside of it will know what the selling price was, how can Bitstamp, you, or anyone else know what the winning price was? And don't just reply "The selling price will get leaked out" or some silly crap, as we know hearsay FUD is completely unreliable. <quick, run away and avoid answering this question. Again.>  Oh, go on, I'll have a stab then. Freedom of information request. Would take some time and may not be granted, but it's been mentioned by USMS. Buyers may want to boast about their new purchase for one reason or another, perhaps to stabilise the market or show how clever they were to make a theoretical profit. Again, not a given but entirely possible. |
|
|
|
Done properly there's a big advantage. Since you're effectively hire-purchasing a house, you cannot ever be in negative equity. Naturally, most banks don't like the idea of shifting liability onto themselves, hence the interest-driven model prevails elsewhere.
I am sure it's not quite as simple as that. At the least the "bank" will charge extra to cover their risk. Then your house could still be worth less than you paid for it when all is done. I bet there's some hefty penalty clause for early termination too. "Properly" meaning according to the spirit of the law. Ijara mortgages tend to be slightly more expensive than regular ones, in any case - unless you are foreclosed, I imagine. I don't know the details, but they're not competitive financially with standard mortgages. |
|
|
|
But how can a bank get income and pay for salaries and and all other costs ? well it is simple an Islamic bank isn't by the western definition a bank, it is a commercial institution, it is not a bank per se, you never get cash as a loan... you need a car? they buy you the car and rent it to you for a tiny profit until you become the owner, you need to buy a house ? they negotiate to buy it for you with the owner and you can live in it and pay "rent" for a time you agreed upon until you pay the whole price and you become the owner, you cant sell it untill you pay, simply you are not the owner of anything until you pay it off.
You typically don't "own" the house with a regular mortgage either. With a car, it depends on whether the loan is secured on the car or not. It's basically the same in all but name but it's human nature to work around pointless restrictions. Done properly there's a big advantage. Since you're effectively hire-purchasing a house, you cannot ever be in negative equity. Naturally, most banks don't like the idea of shifting liability onto themselves, hence the interest-driven model prevails elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Ok, i have 2 simple questions.
It's clear that this small auction completely controls the market. The market is filled with fear. It's reasonable to assume we even already went down 30 dollars because of this (which is insane btw).
Apparently people expect a rally or a dump depending on the outcome.
1: What will cause the rally and what will cause the dump?
2: Why is this considered so extremely important at the moment?
I really must be missing something. Hopefully someone can fill me in.
When no one really wants to buy and no one really wants to sell, it doesn't take much to move the price. I think this might be the ultimate example of a Keynesian beauty contest. Everything knows it shouldn't be a big deal. But everyone is expecting everyone else to blink first, so a lot of blinking happens. For the literal-minded among you, replace 'blink' with 'sell' and this will make more sense. |
|
|
|
|
Are you still looking for writers?
|
|
|
|
This bible code style game need more programming skills than a trained mind  Good luck to all the script coders. No! No computers required this time.  |
|
|
|
Good in theory, but there have been occasions when people have ended up paying a higher fee than they expected because it's initially set according to the transfer amount. Hiding it would mean that happened more. If the fee was a fixed amount that would be good.
What do you mean? I'm not gonna hide the fee on send money modal since that one is dynamic if that's what you mean. Yeah, I wasn't paying attention there, sorry... |
|
|
|
|
Good in theory, but there have been occasions when people have ended up paying a higher fee than they expected because it's initially set according to the transfer amount. Hiding it would mean that happened more. If the fee was a fixed amount that would be good.
|
|
|
|
A while back I posted a pilot and episode 1 of a bitcoin puzzle game. Here is the 2nd episode: http://bitscan.com/articles/the-hidden-keys-game-the-mystery-deepensYou can find out more information about the previous episodes (which might be useful) on that page. It would be good to keep this thread for feedback and updates, though if you win it you might want to limit what you give away, since it may become important again in the future... Enjoy!
EDIT:
Hint #1: Although the email mentions other books, the weird style convinces me that any hidden message is in the text he sent me itself. There are inconsistencies I have spotted, but I'm still not sure where to start... |
|
|
|
what is happening now is a rally between holders to sell without causing any panic, the book order is really thin with few thousands BTC at the Bid side while there is more than 12 million coins out there, do the math.
11 million as Satoshi is in for the long haul. Auction is only two days away, so it is quite feasible that coins are being dumped to depress the market "reference" price ahead of bidding. depressing? is that the right word? if you are not willing to pay the market price and dumping coins on the market to bid lower...well, then the current market price is not right. let us see then how much are they willing to pay. I say 500. I say its the most stupid forecast and explanation I ever heard. That's because you're new here. It gets a lot more stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
