|
are they referring to the github repository 'key' that finalises individuals efforts into a final commitment
are they referring to the alert 'key' that just sends a notification to nodes.
well its not only gavin that used/no longer gavin that uses these.
now its in the hands of blockstream
and this is why we need more diversity and more alternatives so that blockstream dev's are not the only ones dictating the road bitcoin should take.
i do find it funny that they mention gavins name when its obvious gavin is not involved in core.
but i guess its phase three of the RECKed campaign.. to point fingers away from blockstream and towards a dev thats not blockstream to switch the victim/perpetrator visual.
|
|
|
|
There could be a way to provide short selling "insurance" that could benefit all parties. The problem is if the price rises too much and you short sell you could lose a ton of money. You could write an insurance "policy" that refocuses payoff targets for every X jump in price that would allow you to short sell Bitcoin indefinitely.
short selling would involve the insurance company hoarding customers actual 'protected' coins. to be able to short them in the background for profit. rather then promising to buy them under certain conditions. being a vault for peoples funds and offering them only $500 worse case sounds nasty. most people would prefer to keep their own funds and instead only hand them over if a term is met hense why i feel a resistance point exchange is more logical than a 'insurance', the end result/goal is similar, but the headaches are less.. |
|
|
|
If the fee continues to climb, all that will happen is that people start using an alt to store and move money. Ether has rather blotted it's copybook, but at some point an alt will emerge that will solve most of bitcoins problems.
it's kind of obvious - ltc. but no one seems to want to use it. features don't matter compared to trust and bitcoin has the trust. however i've already pretty much given up buying stuff with it because of the expense and if i do continue to buy with crypto then i'll be looking for other options. its kind of more obvious.. Gmaxwell loves his monero.. just wish he stopped negatively messing with bitcoin and calling it a fake positive |
|
|
|
Yeah, this is basically a hedge against volatility. That sort of thing is available in the stock market, but the bitcoin market is probably too fractured and too small for this. But maybe not. It's definitely not a bad idea, but it's something only people with a lot of money would want. Not sure how many big-money investors are around and if they'd want to buy this sort of protection from a random guy on the internet. No offense intended.
most fiat regulations are starting to implement rules where fiat based trading actually halts trading if a price crash drops by X% im pretty sure bitcoin exchanges can themselves implement their own resistance point mechanisms without needing third party insurances. thus avoiding the paperwork and logistics or 'insurance' sorry for being a buzzkill to the topic creator. im just offering out of the box opinions and thoughts to consider |
|
|
|
|
translation of OP's post.
for a small fee. you become a member of a club. that no matter what happens he will buy your coins off you for $500+
to me declaring yourself as an insurance provider in many countries requires you having an insurance registration and also a liability policy.
but what you are actually offering in reality is a resistance point market making exchange. where the resistance point (price wont fall below) is set at $500.
i can see benefits of this.(if done right honourably and transparently)
but i can see issues too
1. customers will need to know your real location (no PO BOX/virtual office/mail drop box) to slap you with a wet fish/court order should you disappear if times become tough.
2. most people wont join now. but wait for a price crash of under say, $600 before being tempted and then will not like to see crappy terms and conditions avoiding payouts, such as 'having had to be a member for 12 months', as an example.
|
|
|
|
I didn't realize VISA is now offering censorship-proof transactions and a store of value which, done correctly, can not be seized.
Oh, that's right, VISA doesn't offer those things and that's why a comparison between VISA and Bitcoin is ridiculous.
Those screaming for on-chain scaling think they need censorship-proof transactions when purchasing a coffee and a doughnut.
Governments around the world continue to implement increasingly strict capital controls and the reason Bitcoin has value is because people can use it to avoid those controls. Confirmation speed and fees are inconsequential in the face of that utility.
nothing against LN for a small niche side service that is optional for small regular spenders like gamblers, adsense and faucet raiders.. but dont scream that LN is the end goal and solution to bitcoin scaling |
|
|
|
I don't know if Bitcoin is finished, but some time ago everybody was talking about the positive things Bitcoin brings. Very cheap transactions where a big point. It's not the case anymore.
Transaction fees can and are still cheaper than most fees for traditional money transfer services. The fee is also more predictable when you go to send unlike with other money transfers such as PayPal. But at last we can handle many transactions per second. Oh i forgot, we can not. thank god we are decentralized....
All i see is talk about the price. People forget the technology. To bad.
If segwit is activated and used, then we can handle more transactions per second than we do now. Once layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning Network and sidechains get started then we will handle much much more tps than right now. fee's are cheaper for the western developed countries half of the time.. but expensive for developing countries all of the time if segwit is activated no guarantee of extra tx count. infact even if 100% of people used segwit the tx count will still end up being 7tx/s (as oppose to 3tx/s now).. but in 2009-2013 the metric was about 7tx/s capability anyway.. as for cores promise of fee discount if segwit activated.. thats a fake discount. pushing the price up and then discounting only part of a transaction and only the transaction of their feature.. wont even bring average prices down to levels of pre 2016 as for LN.. thats just a side service for those that want/need it. dont be stupid to think everyone needs it and dont expect it to be bitcoins end goal. as for sidechains.. be honest and call it what it really is.. an altcoin! .. then try not to be so happy about coaxing people to think altcoins are better and stick to thinking about bitcoins network we should not be driving users down a one way road into permissioned services by pushing up the permissionless system |
|
|
|
if people dont understand how.. this old post explains. yea gmaxwell tweaked it in 0.13.2 to not work for latest average block in the hopes it adds some reactivity to pretend to alleviate it. but its still a problem using 'averages' which dont make the fee's drop reactively when demand is low. but actually keeps fee's up. even when other blocks are low demand. EG take a 25 block average.. imagine first 24 are 0.0001 and the 25th is 0.0025 then look at the 'average' after that.. even if demand was near 0 and no one was pushing the fee up.... the "average" itself pushes up  still not sure.. go open a spreadsheet document and run some averaging scenarios for yourself, see how easy it is to cause an upward rise even without demand being constant. many pools are/have decided to avoid using cores built in average fee feature. but nodes will still end showing an average of fee's, if pools used it |
|
|
|
|
twisting the question around to emphasize the expense part of the question..
well a tonne of gold is expensive
a whole company is expensive
amazons server farm is expensive
thats why you only buy
ounces
shares
racks
bitcoin allows you to buy Bits and Sats
|
|
|
|
|
the PBOC do not care about bitcoin exchanges.
remember this simple truth
for every bitcoin buyer is a bitcoin seller.. ergo for every yuan trader is another yuan trader.
Yuan doesn't disappear/get burned. it just passes hands.
it doesn't disappear in a bottomless pit of paper money. it sits in chinese banks. staying in chinese banks circulation
ultimately nothing changes for the yuan apart from which account holder is holding the yuan.
the threat is not bitcoin trading using bank accounts. the threat has nothing to do with bitcoin exchanges.
the real threat is where
bank notes (as paper) are cheaper than toilet paper. where people begin wiping their ass and flushing/destroying bank notes.
bank notes (as paper) are cheaper than home fireplace wood. where people begin burning bank notes to stay warm
literally destroying currency and taking it out of circulation.
that is a scenario unrelated to bitcoin.
also
the banks by law(regulation) cannot buy bitcoin.. so if you think the banks bought bitcoin simply to crash the market. then you are foolish.
even if banks were able to do this, guess what.. they are doing nothing more then handing funds they have to other people for themselves to lose out on.
banks want profits, they want trickle UP economics, not trickle down economics.
yes banks offer loans to pretend they are doing trickle down.. but they ask for 10x% back so its trickle up eventually.
also
banks know that dumping the price of another currency does not destroy it, it advertises it as a "discount day" of that outside currency, driving more people towards it while its cheaper.
yes inexperienced traders already holding the outside currency cry and panic. but experienced traders love the opportunity to double down and average out their holdings. experienced traders not yet holding love the opportunity to buy in cheap.
summary
all the PBOC were doing is stating a standard consumer risk memo that investments are risky and people can lose aswell as profit
this price drop has nothing to do with PBOC doing funny things maliciously. it is more than likely the exchange owner themselves taking advantage of the new AllTimeHigh a few days ago, to cash out to pay their bills.
|
|
|
|
Collisions are actually far easier than you think. I am working on that now.
Stay tuned.
are you going page by page through directory.io.. if so ill remind my great great great great great great grandchildren to check in on your great great great great great great grandchildren when they inherit your project after we both pass away and have been rotting for a few centuries |
|
|
|
It is interesting you would write all the above to only say that it is "irrational".
Nothing you stated directly refutes what I have stated.
Quantum mechanic's current understanding is exactly what I have stated.
If you read more on it, you will ultimately be forced to agree.
The term "superposition" is not a buzzword. I am baffled by that comment.
My comments are strictly as to Quantum physics and the Schrodinger's Cat
example as to address collision, and have nothing to do with quantum computing.
Prior to your most recent statement, I am not aware of anyone making a comment
as to quantum computing in this thread.
Nevertheless, quantum computing, as you are defining, is the simplest level of that form
of operation. As it becomes more advanced, things you consider "mystical" can be performed.
The mathematics already predict those outcomes, no matter how bizarre and irrational to some
people it may seem to be.
quantum theory quantum mechanics quantum computing. is all about quanta in short once you pull away the big science buzzwording. its the simple fact of... more options.(quantity quantitate) quantum theory can go so absurdly irrational that quantum theorists would think that it was ok to escalate the amount of options of Schroedinger cat to hypotheses that while in the box an asteroid can enter the earth's atmosphere and cause a sonic boom which echo's inside the box and scares the cat into having a heart attack so the chances of death are higher. thats just one example of where trying to bring quantum theory into a debates can end up going down an irrational rabbit hole. as for me taking the opportunity to meander an already meandered topic even further off topic(of collisions) i tried to redirect it back into the realm of other conversations in other topics (bitcoin based, not cat death based) to explain quantum computing.. seeing as this is a bitcoin forum and more people care about quantum theory in regards to bitcoin, rather than a cat lastly i said mythical meaning a myth a theory a story. anything is a myth until it is busted. i prefer science fact when dealing with current and future tech. and although quantum does open up more options, sticking to rational and practical idea's without doing deep into a rabbit hole of absurd possibilities is what i try to keep to |
|
|
|
To say the least, I'm shocked and disappointed as well . In as much as I want to argue this, I now know Web wallets are not truly decentralized as they're supposed to be. Well, I was expecting you to mention blockchain.info Coz I've heard It has that functionality.
i would say blockchain.info is a service that does do what you want. but just be sure to back up all the keys/seed you use, incase the website goes down and use a REALLY LONG password/phrase(avoids hackers getting at your keys/seed). but back up the keys/seed in several locations. as the funds are linked to the keys/seed not the services password. so the private keys/seed is the most important thing to keep safe centralised webwallets(where they hold the funds on THEIR keys) are usually best only for daily spend amounts. like what you would spend on a few days groceries or a fun night out amount. own use private key/seed webwallets are more like a few weeks/months wages. home PC downloaded litewallets for larger amounts hardware wallets for life changing amounts but always backup the key/seed the more you hold the more cautious you should get. |
|
|
|
|
coinbase does not give users private keys.
just like all other exchanges
when you put funds in. they all belong to coinbase/other exchanges.
you are just given a mySQL database "balance" and that is it.
should they shutdown you lose.
should they get hacked. they will try to convince you that you lost funds (even though they lost funds)
its like a bank where you need to ask them when you want some funds and they can authorise a withdrawal to you, which is more of a moral contract.
this is why its best you store funds in a wallet that gives you private keys so that you are in sole control of the funds and not having to rely on third parties morals/ethics
|
|
|
|
|
no quantum theory is not that mythical
if you wipe away non descriptive buzzwords like super-position and think rationally. its simple.
its just opening up the idea that things are not black and white, on or off, dead or alive, binary.. .. not 2 options
its meant to open peoples minds to more options.
yea some people go absurdly beyond the rational because they think the quantum theory allows them to think irrationally. but thats not what its about.
Schroedinger cat is in the state of dying.. there is a chance of saving it by opening the box early. or waiting longer where the chance it dies is higher.
like hospitals. when someones heart stops.. they are physically dead.
but doctors do a 'code blue' and run to the patient saying the patient is dying. and try resuscitation the patient. its only minutes later do doctors declare the patient is dead, even if his body gave out minutes earlier
like hospitals. when someones heart is working.. they are physically alive. but have multiple cancers and in extreme pain
so doctors say the patient is dying. and discuss euthanasia as a humane option. its only minutes later do doctors declare the patient is dead, or alive depending on if they euphanize or not
what you see and think may be different to reality so things are not as black and white as alive and dead. on or off, theres always a grey area in everything.
quantum computing is not some outer space wormhole, time twisting theory.
its simply instead of using the old binary 2option switch.. its using more than 2 options.
eg
its not 0v=0 or 1v=1..
its 0v=0 0.33v=1 0.66v=2 1v=3 its as simple as that.
its about if and maybe.. aswell as yes no / on off / true false
|
|
|
|
|
agreed.
im still laughing at the utopian dream of hedging against fiat but measuring it in favour of fiat..
i hope soon exchanges start measuring bitcoin in "cost of living index" which is more of a international metric that is more tied directly to goods and services where the fiat valuation is secondary
|
|
|
|
|
yea it speaks with a few people.
mainly gavin andresen.. seems like not the latest interview video
bit of erik voorhees
others are talking but they are not prominent names.
|
|
|
|
just came across a documentary about bitcoin called "banking on bitcoin" cited as created 2016 sorry if this streaming site gives a couple annoying pop-ups. most sites do these days if anyone can link a less annoying site, ill list it https://123movies.cloud/film/banking-on-bitcoin-18789/watching.htmlreview interviews with lots of people mentioned everything from cypherpunks, a bit about how bitcoin works (no big technical detail, so noob friendly) mtgox, silkroad, bitinstant, VC's jumping in, bankers starting altcoins. and a few speculations on who is satoshi summary fair 50/50 unbiased. mentioning major events and history of bitcoin |
|
|
|
No. Because back then bitcoin had low difficulty, and was more decentralized. But things changed, nowadays probably more than 90% of hash power is in china. So if 90% of the hashpower vanishes over night the network won't be able to recover because the low hashrate outside the china won't have enough power to keep the network running. And the adjust period is <1week. In the meantime, there'll be a war to exit bitcoin to alts or fiat which would further slow down the already clogged network in a spiral to death.
Yeah, eventualy things would settle down, but a 5-50$ bitcoin would never recover anymore since all the cult believing which is what is sustaining bitcoin today will be gone then. The impact on it's image would be too severe.
This is why POW cannot work long term.
facepalm dont call out foolish numbers |
|
|
|
-snip-
Your post is a classic example of a useless shitpost. Please stop responding in threads where the subject is out of your league. lauda as not only a moderator, but as a sig campaign organiser yourself. you could and should just report him to his sign campaign manager and lose him his earning status. that would shut him up ... The current release of brainflayer is 1 trillion passphrases on AWS,
a trillion pass phrases. thats only: 9 alphabet characters deep 8 alphanumeric characters deep 7 alphanumericsymbol characters deep |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
