I gave up my FPGA project - even if it's cheaper than ASICminer - because at current difficulty (and difficulty increase rate) the ROI rised to 6-8 or even more months. I have better investments than that :/ I'll leave these two PCBs I already made running and forget the whole thing.
 6-8 months is a great ROI, actually... what could possibly yield you better results? the point is to make profit, not to make roi, making only roi is useless and when i say profit, i mean an amount equal to the one invested, aka ROI X 2 minimum Of course, but... why do you assume it would instantly explode just after having returned the investment? |
|
|
|
|
Sounds good to me too.
You could easily offer a small reward, it shouldn't take much to code such a script.
I guess you could either pay a little bit but have no guarantee it will work, or pay much more but have it throughly tested.
|
|
|
|
It's obvious the only people who want the price to decrease are the ones WANTING TO BUY SOME at a discount, with little to no interest in friedcats success. These fools are inexperienced at life and half no idea how supply and demand works. If he can get away with selling these sticks for 2 bitcoins, he will! If he could get away with selling them for 5 bitcoins, he would!
+1 That's the same kind of people who complain when alt currencies get dumped, but don't buy them instead (implying they don't really believe them to be valuable either). With todays change in bitcoins exchange value,
oh dare i tell you of indirect discount
Wrong. Since they are priced in BTC and using them you earn BTC, the exchange ratio with other currencies is totally irrelevant. If you are long on bitcoin it would be a good time to get a blade
Wrong: it would be a good time to buy bitcoins, if you spend them to get a blade is irrelevant, as I explained above. |
|
|
|
sorry for bad bad English.
Grammar is not a problem, there are many non-native speakers here, so that's fine. But using abbreviations and slang terms (like "u" or "wassup") makes it really difficult to understand. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, trading volumes in LTC-GLOBAL on the LTC-GLOBAL exchange and BTC-TRADING-PT on the BTC-TC exchange are too low. I believe the primary reason is an excessive bid/ask spread. In a large part, this spread is due to the lack of volume-- in other words, the problem is self-perpetuating.
In my very humble opinion, which is certainly less informed than yours (no sarcasm), I think there are two problems much larger than that, which are actually its causes. 1. The dividend is way too low. Even if this month's dividend is a record, it's still 7.37% per year. Now, if not for the dividend someone might buy it for the voting power, but obtaining a seat costs too much (~2400€). 2. While the site has a very nice and handy theme, it still has so many bugs and quirks which may make people unconfortable, especially developers who may fear something might break badly. Don't misunderstand me, btct.co is a really great platform and I'm very happy to be able to use it, still these are the reasons I guess why not many people are interested into buying it. |
|
|
|
Is it possible? To have 1 wallet which will split earnings to 2 bitcoin addresses after for example 2 days ? Looking forward to your answers ! Best regards, Demo Bear in mind that it might be useful to know why you need to do such a thing. |
|
|
|
ok so why is this a emergency?
cause i m in holliday and need money WE can use john k of course and you need 4450€? O_o quite an expensive holiday, I'd say... of course if you use an escrow I don't see what could go wrong... |
|
|
|
There are other interesting advantages. In the case of distributed exchanges, the chronology can determine market winners and losers. How do we decide who gets to bid on trades? What if we wanted an auction? who decides who wins the auction if it depends on TIMING? This also solves this problem for the users so long as they feel properly represented in the order of authorities. If we tried to do this with PoW, then the miners might compete to put the chain in a favorable order. In my system we make this negotiation explicit.
this order can be defined in many ways. For instance you could have one singular FIAT authority who rules all, very easy to manage, but not very easy to sell to the public. You could have a TRIUMVIRATE- or three equal authorities- which is fairly easy to coordinate and also non-biased. You could extend this principle geometrically to five or more authorities. You can also have different weight ratios for instance 1 primary authority but a school of smaller authorities that can outweigh it if unanimous(called KING AND COURT in my terminology). I still miss the point. You talk about exchanges, but at some point there must be one entity which accepts a valuable (fiat, gold, whatever) and emits a corresponding digital IOU. Which is exactly like Ripple. If this doesn't work that way, how do you suggest to do it? It's totally unclear. Re. Ripple, specifically how this idea differs from whatever Ripple is at the moment is anyone's guess. They have no released their source code. At this point I dont think they can drift significantly from the core concepts, and I do know that those concepts work quite differently than what I have. Confidence Chains is very familiar to Bitcoin developers. ASMOF, you can use the transactions AS IS, in the system- which is very convenient for Bitcoin users and developers.
I know that Ripple claims to be open but it isn't, and this is bad. But what aims to do is known, and your project can't be "like Ripple, but open", because on paper Ripple itself "would" be open, while in practice Ripple isn't open, but your system doesn't exists at all, so... |
|
|
|
this doesn't have 'gateways', that's Ripple you're talking about. It's not easy to shut down the authorities. They can be run from a cell phone or any other kind of unreliable connection(even email is possible). It doesn't require that anyone run a server, so you could authorize transactions from anywhere, even a mobile device. Secondly you must shut down ALL the authorities- and there could be hundreds all in different countries with different connections. It's quite resilient.
The fact is if you want some kind of asset with backing, there must be some kind of authority somewhere, because ultimately you need to be able to redeem those assets somehow. This system offers the MOST flexibility for designing that authority.
Then it looks like I didn't understand your paper. What is the difference between a ripple gateway (such as bitstamp) and your "authority"? This post seems to imply that one asset might have multiple authorities... which would be cool, but how would be that possible in practice? i.e. every single authority should be able to redeem your "coins" with the backed valuables... |
|
|
|
I've read it, and it looks exactly like Ripple. Which basically trades IOUs. And yes you can close down gateways exactly like you can close down exchanges, so you would have solved nothing. |
|
|
|
I gave up my FPGA project - even if it's cheaper than ASICminer - because at current difficulty (and difficulty increase rate) the ROI rised to 6-8 or even more months. I have better investments than that :/ I'll leave these two PCBs I already made running and forget the whole thing.
6-8 months is a great ROI, actually... what could possibly yield you better results? |
|
|
|
Can Opencoin reverse transactions if you ask them to?
Since they control all of the servers, technically they can do anything. Of course if they started reversing transactions, I guess confidence in Ripple would zero quite quickly. At most you could expect OpenCoin to reimburse some XRP taking them from their account, but I wouldn't bet on that. |
|
|
|
Never heard of it before, and it was connected to Liberty Reserve, so really no news here. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter how much you earn or need or spend.
The whole point is that you should be able to save at least "one cycle" of money, as a fallback in case the next cycle gets delayed.
So if you live off your dividends, fine, but you should save at least one week of them, to be used in case next week comes later.
That's so obvious and natural I fail to see how can you miss it.
What if you cannot afford to do that? What if your electric bill has to be paid? If you have exhausted your reserves, you have already fucked up. No point in crying about a delayed dividend, you should have acted sooner. By the way, if you really have such an urgency, you can still sell 1 share, which is definitely worth more than 1 dividend, pay your bills, replenish your reserve, and you'll buy it back when you can. |
|
|
|
what if you live dividend to dividend and a delay in confirmations means no funds for rent.
I suggest living Friday to Friday then, and diversifying a bit. Surely, no one lives week to week on the dividends, unless they are beyond messed up... What if they live in a developing country? It doesn't matter how much you earn or need or spend. The whole point is that you should be able to save at least "one cycle" of money, as a fallback in case the next cycle gets delayed. So if you live off your dividends, fine, but you should save at least one week of them, to be used in case next week comes later. That's so obvious and natural I fail to see how can you miss it. |
|
|
|
No need to suspect OP, he can afford that, otherwise let's stay on topic, what's stopping Opencoin from implementing cold storage?
They way ripple works, AFAIK, all the wallets are distributed online, and your "password" is basically the passphrase you use to decrypt it. That's why you can't neither change password nor store them online: because anyway you have no guarantee that some server didn't just keep a copy. |
|
|
|
if you take the idealism out of Bitcoin, what is the point?
It would still be very useful, and that's one of the main reasons why it's so successful in the first place. |
|
|
|
[...]
Wow, thanks again for this great post! |
|
|
|
Well done Granny for buying all those blades
LMAO |
|
|
|
Most people in bitcoinland are financial newbies, so these kinds of mistakes are common.
Perfectly understandable, but in the interests of everyone it would be better to fix those mistakes, switching securities to the correct category. Is there a specific reason why this hasn't been done, or it's just because nobody cared or because burnside is too busy? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
