|
I was just looking at bitcoin explorer and I saw that some high decimal precision transactions already occured.
Such as [utl=http://blockexplorer.com/t/AVJUJWnahm]82.68708455[/url] for instance.
Such a complex amount for a transaction is probably holding data, not just an amount. Satoshi had already expressed his concern about people using the block chain to store data, and I think he considered this as some kind of an attack on the network.
I wonder if miners could not consider requesting special transaction fees for amounts that have high entropic value.
By entropic, I mean that for instance an amount such as 105.43908821 has much more entropy than 0.01, even if it is much bigger. To me, a transaction of the former amount should be more likely to require a transaction fee than the latter.
I think it doesn't even have to need any modification of the bitcoin code, does it? I guess it is just a request we could address to the miners.
|
|
|
|
There already is a limitation on chains I accept: the longest one. period.
Not exactly. You also only consider block chains whose first block is the one that is hard coded in the code. I wonder if we could not rewrite bitcoin without this hard coded genesis block. Instead, the software would listen to any blocks, and would create the largest block chain it can, whatever the first block is. |
|
|
|
Maintenant que je comprends un peu mieux le principe de cette monnaie, je crains qu'elle retire du pouvoir aux états pour se précipiter vers une société encore plus libérale. Les remarques glanées de-ci de-là par leurs défenseurs (cf grondilu sur linuxfr) donnent une certaine consistance à mes craintes.
j'ai les oreilles qui sifflent là  |
|
|
|
It's an understandable beginner's mistake by Patrick, and Grondilu's response is the correct one. BiddingPond might want to consider adding a phrase "even if the value of a bitcoin changes" to the confirmation dialog box, just to make this clear.
Although not needed this will be added by the end of the day for the sake of being more explicit. Since you are following this thread biddingpond, can I ask you to edit my auction and add the following paragraph at the end ? Please do not bid if you don't really intend to buy the coin, or if you don't own the amount of bitcoins you are about to bid. Do not make a bid based on your expectation of the currency exchange at the end of the auction. Only bid the amount of bitcoins you currently own, and that your are willing to give in order to get the coin. |
|
|
|
I made the Italian version of this great video, available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSUJqb33Sd8It is dubbed, not simply subbed, that helps a lot the peple watching it, even if I find that it "runs" too fast, I would have preferred to describe things more slowly thus giving people more time to grasp all those new concepts. Ideally it would be great to have it dubbed in all major languages  Can it be added to the italian part of the wiki or some important starting point? Thanks Well done. However, this makes me realize how short is the english language, really. You really seem to struggle to have your text fit in the time frame of the video. |
|
|
|
I answered a question about this coin but I forgot to make it public, so I publish it here: >> Message posted From: XXXXXX@gmail.com>> >> Hi Grondilu, >> >> I wouldn't usually ask this sort of thing, but due to extenuating circumstances >> it's become necessary. >> >> When I originally bid on your gold coin (101BTC), I was bidding with the >> expectation of 1BTC=1.80USD. About $180USD was the most I was willing to bid on >> the item. >> >> Now that 1BTC=3.57USD, I cannot afford my bid. I did not anticipate a rise from >> $1.80/BTC to $3.57. >> >> I realize that this is request could be damaging to my reputation on >> BiddingPond or in the BTC world, but I simply cannot afford to pay $360 for an >> item on BiddingPond at the moment. I don't have that kind of disposable income >> this month. >> >> I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience that I'm sure this will cause for >> you, and I would be willing to pay you several BTC for lost time if you find >> that to be necessary. >> >> Thanks for your time and understanding, >> >> Patrick > > Hi, > > thanks for noticing that you won't be capable of fullfilling your bid. In case > you are not overbidded, the auction will simply be cancelled, and I will have > to give you a negative rating. Sorry about that. > > Note for other bidders: please do not bid a bitcoin amount you don't actually > own or that you are not really willing to pay. Do not make a bid based on your > expectation for currency rates at the end of the auction. Failure to do so will > damage your reputation as a buyer. Only bid a bitcoin amount you currently own > and that you are willing to give in order to get the item. |
|
|
|
The Silver Lining in the Cloud
This is actually very GOOD news for the Bitcoin world. The lunatics out there who launched this DDoS attack on MtGox have actually forced MtGox to harden its protection again such attacks... which is a VERY VERY GOOD THING for MtGox... and thus, for all of us.
"In a minute" MtGox will be back online... stronger and more secure than ever before.
That could also lead to higher exchange fee rates  |
|
|
|
More importantly, gold is constantly being introduced to the market through mining. In 100 years, Bitcoin will have less monetary inflation than gold.
Gold and bitcoins, as any commodity, follow the same exponential rule for extraction. Gold started to be extracted long before bitcoins were. Therefore I'm pretty sure gold will always have a lower monetary inflation than bitcoins. I believe a few maths could prove it. |
|
|
|
"If it is possible to imagine one private electronic currency, then it’s possible to imagine several, and there would be no guarantee that other people would accept the particular electronic money you use."
IMO this is an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed enough on this forum. To me, there is no guarantee that other people would accept any currency anyway, unless they are forced to. Money should not get its value from coercion, but social acceptance. Moreover, even in a word with many competing cryptocurrencies, commercial transactions with anyone are possible, as long as there is an efficient currency exchange market. |
|
|
|
In the communist version, guns are pointed inside the circle. Towards the worker, preventing him from escaping. And the worker has a unhappy face In the capitalist version, guns are pointed outside the circle. They aim at protecting the worker's product of labour. The worker has a happy face. I like the version where the guns are pointed around the circumference of the circle, and everyone shoots when the signal is given. Lol. Do you know there is a french movie that is all about such a stupid game? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jn0_ugqco |
|
|
|
That's a cool idea. Should it include some sad people outside of the capitalist circle looking in, and some looking out?  Say Canadian corporations affected by the differences in copyright laws between the US, or vice versa (Pandora/Hulu/etc). Or entrepreneurs who want to start a business in the US but can't do it due to immigration laws. I'll whip up a draft in the next few days. - shazow No. Nobody outside of the circle. I'd like to keep the drawing as simple as possible. |
|
|
|
|
I guess it's not surprising for an argentinian person to be interested in bitcoins. After the crisis they encountered.
Am I guessing right?
|
|
|
|
|
The bitcoin wiki is not a public place. It is not supposed to be the central website where to put all offers for goods and services accepting bitcoins. It is just one of them.
There is no "Euro marketplace wiki" nor a "dollar central marketplace".
So your question has to be answered by whoever created this wiki and has admin priviledges on it.
|
|
|
|
I would like a drawing that is not exactly bitcoin related. Rather, it would picture a caricature of the difference between capitalism and communism. At least in my mind. Both pictures would represent a circle of armed men, with a worker inside. The worker can do anything, for instance he can mine something (not bitcoins, the idea is that he has to be a symbol of labour). In the communist version, guns are pointed inside the circle. Towards the worker, preventing him from escaping. And the worker has a unhappy face In the capitalist version, guns are pointed outside the circle. They aim at protecting the worker's product of labour. The worker has a happy face. No legend. I'll add it myself. 2 BTC. |
|
|
|
Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence. Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever. If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya.  True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any kind other kind of violence. But no at any price. At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force. So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it. The other thing is, the most violent gangs and criminals absolutely dwarf the level of violence that the state has been able to get away with. Look at how many people have been outright murdered by states. Compare that to all regular criminals in history, including gangs. It's not even a close comparison. While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people. I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc... But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence. Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck. Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state. What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil and the states of the West today? The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively worong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and amended, made war for and made war against... movements made and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet. And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Ceasar or Charlamagne or something and ending withy some guy may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch. I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a state, we should take responsibility for it. That's where the debate gets interesting. I'll write more about that later. |
|
|
|
While most states can rule people peacefully and with their will, occasionally states turn so bad and violent that they absolutely slaughter millions of people. I'm willing to deal with Mad Max if it means no Pol Pots, no Stalins, no Hitlers, no Bushes, no Trumans, no Qadaffis, etc...
Agreed. Local violence used by individuals, with their own means, is certainly less dangerous than global scale industrialised violence from States, financed with taxation. States have used tax money to design nuclear bombs, do genocides and so many terrible stuffs. In many ways, twentieth century history is much scarier than any MadMax movie. On one hand you have states:   And on the other hand you have anarcho-capitalistic icones:   Now, is anarcho-capitalism really scarier ? |
|
|
|
Well, you can have a perfect competition of violence, a kind of every man for himself situation, which will inevitably become an oligopoly of violence, warlordism basically, which would eventually may become a duopoly of violence before finally settling into a monopoly of violence. Most people prefer at least an oligopoly of violence, because then they don't have to worry about violence as much and can get on with gazing at the stars and wondering what's out there, studying pond-life under microscopes, building and growing stuff and thinking up new ways to buy and sell things in shops or whatever. If you want to live in a perfect competition of violence, good luck to ya. True, everybody would like to live in a peaceful society, with no gun or any other kind of violence. But not at any price. At some point if the oligopoly of violence asks too much to the people it is supposed to protect, then individuals get weapons and reorganize distribution of force. So if we have to step towards a Mad Max or Clint Eastwood society in order to get rid of the scumbags who spoil every single inch of freedom we desire, be it. |
|
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong in a monopoly, as long as it is obtained legetimately, ie. without violence.
Google for instance has almost a monopoly on web searches. Does anyone complain? No. Because searching information on the web is just something that they do better than anyone else and that is why they have a monopoly. There is a demand and they satisfy this demand. Where is the problem?
|
|
|
|
Plus généralement, ne sous-estime pas Satoshi. Lis et relis son papier. Bitcoin est vraiment très bien pensé. Je doute qu'on trouve mieux avant longtemps. Totalement d'accord. Et c'est un défi d'autant plus intéressant que d'essayer de trouver un système qui pallie ce que je considère comme une faiblesse (inciter à consommer du CPU/GPU/ASIC/courant). Je l'ai déjà dit dans d'autres fils, comme celui sur le toecoin, mais je suis presque sûr que ça doit être une sorte de théorème qui doit pouvoir être démontré rigoureusement. Genre: une cryptodevise, pour être à la fois décentralisée, purement électronique et anonyme, doit nécessairement distribuer la monnaie en fonction de la puissance de calcul des utilisateurs. L'idée c'est que le logiciel recquiert nécessairement de la puissance de calcul pour fonctionner, ne serait-ce qu'un tout petit peu. Donc si un utilisateur requiert une puissance dP pour utiliser la machine et recevoir dM unités monétaires par unité de temps, alors il peut, puisque le système est anonyme, se faire passer pour quelqu'un d'autre afin d'obtenir deux fois plus de monnaie. Et pour ça il devra utiliser une puissance 2*dP, tout ça pour toucher 2*dM. Rien n'empêche un utilisateur de se faire passer pour une quantité N quelconque d'utilisateurs. Et pour ça il lui faut une puissance de calcul de N*dP, qui lui permettra de toucher N*dM quantité de monnaies. Au final on voit bien que la génération des unités monétaires dépend de la quantité de puissance de calcul qu'est capable de mobiliser chaque utilisateur. |
|
|
|
Avec un système comme ça, si tant est que j'ai bien compris, il y aura une course aux noeuds. Un être humain peut posséder autant de machines qu'il le souhaite (quitte à utiliser des machines virtuelles). Exactement, ça sera la course aux noeuds et plus précisément celui qui aura le plus de connexions avec des clients qui vont générer des transactions et qui devront transmettre le plus vite possible la transaction. Ben non puisque comme précisé les humains s'enverront des transactions bidons à eux même. Les membres du réseau feront fonctionner un maximum de machines et s'enverront des transactions à eux mêmes afin d'augmenter leurs chances d'acquérir des bitcoins. Ah, là je sèche :p. Bitcoin a le même souci (spam des transactions), mais ici, il serait amplifié à cause de "l'élection". Une idée ? bis. Contre le spam des transactions il y a les frais de transactions. Et de toute façon avec le modèle actuel spammer ne te donne pas plus de chance de générer. Ca ne peut être utile que pour un attaquant qui souhaite détruire le réseau, pas l'exploiter. Plus généralement, ne sous-estime pas Satoshi. Lis et relis son papier. Bitcoin est vraiment très bien pensé. Je doute qu'on trouve mieux avant longtemps. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
