I agree fully. It will take a long time for the poor and uneducated to realize this benefit however. This is the main customer base of WU.
The Bitcoin strength in remittance and the fact that WU is quite leveraged were the main two arguments against investing in WU.
Acutally, not many poor and uneducated people could afford to use WU.... people mostly use it when they are out of options. |
|
|
|
Loaded just showed up again last night. A good sign?  Unless hes about to take a dump all over us. No worries, I've been busy selling off the mass of coins I woke up to on Wednesday. The speed at which the fork was repaired has mostly improved confidence among clients. So, I take it to mean that you don't have a bot. |
|
|
|
Eleuthria, if you need me to translate your email into Chinese for some of those in the shame list, please let me know.  |
|
|
|
|
I got a kinda silly idea: how about creating a USB stick that could only be read/written in RAW mode by Armory? The USB should contain no file system at all, so no executable can be run from it.
|
|
|
|
Im sure Satoshi does not care much about bitcoin. He just wants to cash out his holdings. I'm guessing for him it's a full time occupation, working out how he's going to do it. I cant imagine anyone with so much money would be bothered to work. Plus he would need to keep a close eye on the exchanges and news to watch for anything that could affect his net worth. IMO, (many ppl may not agree - fair enough) Satoshi is not one person. It is 3 people as identified by a magazine article recently published , with undeniable evidence that has been presented about Satoshi. If one goes through this article and does some research on the people mentioned, looks at their previous postings (one in particular has a style very similar to satoshi), you will also be able to see that they have posted on these forums under different usernames since Satoshi disappeared. Whilst using the search function I noticed 1 suspicious example. http://bit.ly/WkjEHgRE: uncirculating bitcoins http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdfIt is interested that apparently an 'unknown entity' has commanded 3 million BTCs distributed across 78,000 addresses. Im not sure if the entity still owns this many BTCs however. It would be interested to identity this person. Similar anonymous entities (ex Mt Gox & identified mining pools) have processed: (just copying from the paper here) 940,000 BTC 870,000 BTC 690,000 BTC ... with a further 11 entities processed amounts of over 400,000 BTC. Now ok I understand that this list is probably mainly mining pools & miners but also could more than 1 of them be Satoshi. The number of ppl who could accumulate so many BTCs in such a short time is very small (this was in May 2012). (up until May 13th 2012) we discovered that most of the minted bitcoins remain dormant in addresses which had never
participated in any outgoing transactions. We found out that there is a huge number of tiny transactions which move only a small fraction of a single bit- coin, but there are also hundreds of transactions which move more than 50,000
bitcoins.
The design of bitcoin, the complexity around it, required more than 1 very smart person. In addition, the way in which someone has distributed their holdings amoungst so many addresses - it's very smart. I dont think any of these coins are 'lost'. IMO these coins will emerge at some point, maybe alongside 'Satoshi' himself. Thanks also to Citigroup for this research as it seems they funded the paper. THe biggest 4 addresses as of now have been identified to below to Silk Road and Coinad. I don't think Satoshi created the bitcoin just to cash out his holdings, looking in retrospective everyone can claim that they should have come up with such an idea, but who could have envisioned that this thing could become so successful that it can actually produce a few millionaires? It would seem plausible that the only attention bitcoin would get is some random people coming around to take a glimpse at his paper and code, and leave some trashy comments, and nothing more-the internet is full of dead projects. If someone was so convinced to devote such a huge part of his/their time to create and maintain such a project, I am sure there was something else motivating him, other than wealth. Not to say that whether it's one or several people, their intelligence and capability should be able to land a fine job for them. |
|
|
|
It's the kind of stash that, even if you are in Bitcoin for the long haul, the temptation to cash out just 2% of it and buy a yacht or an island or something is just too great. Not doing so means that you are either extremely wealthy already, or some kind of supervillain who intends to take over the world once Bitcoin is in more widespread use.
Unless Satoshi lives in a country whose government truly respects its subjects' financial privacy (I'm not aware of any), spending any substantial amount of his coins without declaring them might get him in trouble with the tax man. Declaring and paying taxes on them might ruin his anonymity. It's possible he's simply trapped by this, holding onto his coins, waiting for an eventual future solution to pop up. There is also this possibility that he is already financially comfortable that he could go on this one man's endeavour for two years to build everything from scratch, it's already an incredible amount of work to do full-time, I could hardly imagine someone can get it done part-time. |
|
|
|
Maybe after the price crash several times, yet fully recovers each time, there will be slightly more people willing to admit that people are buying bitcoins because they are useful, not that they want to profit from a pyramid scheme?  |
|
|
|
https://mtgox.com/press_release_20120831.html In the seven months between Jan 31 and Aug 31, Gox transferred 50 millions worth of dollars, after this unprecedented rally, I would expect hundreds of millions of dollars must have poured in.
|
|
|
|
|
You could just put your wallet in an offline computer in some vaults, with MT or someone else sharing the keys, nobody can sign the transactions if they don't have physical access to the computer. If you are talking about the possibility of coercing others to give up all the coins by threatening to kill the kidnapped guy, well, traditional banks are not any safer in this aspect either.
|
|
|
|
As a trading newbie i dont understand at all!
Looking at the wall image a couple of posts back, it seems like there is a vertical line to the right... that suggests to me that it would be hard for the price to move up.
The line to the left is way less steep... doesn't that mean it is easier for the price to drop?
How are you supposed to read these images?? Why do you all think the price is about to go up? What are you looking at??
For starters, you ignore the walls. This entire thread is a massive distraction. Welcome to the dumpster lounge, located in the landfill known as "Speculation." I am a pumpster, ca I join?  |
|
|
|
Seriously if we go through $50... My fiends ask my everyday, can I buy? How much risk? Are you nuts? Dafuq is a hard fork?
Too much pressure, lol.
You have fiends? 0_o Can I buy? Sure. How much risk? Enough. Are you nuts? Aren't we all? Dafuq is a hard fork? A free market solution. Pressure? What pressure? lol They'll make me responsable if prirateat40 cashes out again  +250% in less than 3 months is big "this-must-be-wrong-sign" for many people. Especially Germans^^ You told them in a kind of very patronizing, "i don't care" attitude, they most probably will remain suspicious, and withhold buying, then once the price moves up again, they will get all crazy like"Why did I miss such a good opportunity!" and start buying in a rush, if the price falls then you will not be held responsible as you did not really recommend it. |
|
|
|
Bought back my "panic" trade coins at a loss.
I honestly thought the incident would give quite some negativity which in combination with the already elevated bitcoins prices would knock off a serious bit of the price. Either it is taking quite some time to digest the incident, or it just shows how much power the bitcoin rocket has going on. I still think it can go either way, but getting more bullish by the hour.
Investors smart enough: The fundamentals are sound, things like this will not affect my decision. Investors dumb: What, a hack of bitcoin? Didn't I see it on an almost monthly basis? I don't care! So nothing to see here, move along. |
|
|
|
|
It just proves that non-techie medias could get things right if they really put some time to do their homework, so all the journalists ot there, stop slacking.
|
|
|
|
Currently the merchant just polls the transaction for the number of confirmations. The client never says "this one is non-reversible". This kind of monitoring system would require the client to make a judgement call.
I don't think you even need to change the client, it's about if the merchant delivers the final goods or not, so it could be an additional system that just checks the blockchain for possible forks. it's not quite that simple: which blockchain? The simplest way is to just query a third party, e.g., blockchain.info's API, I am sure there are many other methods, to those who are on the orphaned chain, the main chain is just their orphaned chain, you only need to decide if there is a big difference between the two chains, no need to decide which one is right. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is: who should make the decision? All developers/miners/users should be eligible for a vote, or Satoshi shows up again to appoint or just nominate one person? Or Gavin himself would appoint his successor?
|
|
|
|
that IS funny. People should keep in mind that mark-to-market is not mark-to-value. Yeah, bitcoin stable, my dick up. |
|
|
|
Currently the merchant just polls the transaction for the number of confirmations. The client never says "this one is non-reversible". This kind of monitoring system would require the client to make a judgement call.
I don't think you even need to change the client, it's about if the merchant delivers the final goods or not, so it could be an additional system that just checks the blockchain for possible forks. |
|
|
|
Also litecoin at 75 cents, people are starting to understand why we use bitcoin as our testnet:)
Notice how LTC went down last night as BTC went down, then up as BTC went up. That's because LTC is only good to buy BTC. I mean, I did help pump the market today and made 10BTC doing it, so thanks LTC. I mean, you're markets so small that I could even manipulate it! Not to say their network is far far away from facing problems that Bitcoin network has to face, and yeah, they could keep copying everything that bitcoin developers implemented, and giving back no appreciation but taunts. |
|
|
|
LOL @ FUDders who claim this will doom bitcoin b/c merchants.
One double-spend in entire history of BTC vs thousands and thousands of fraudulent doublespends (chargebacks) via MASTERCARD VISA PAYPAL etc etc etc. Not only that, but fraudulent chargebacks are practically encouraged by card companies, are built into the system i.e. you can request one. BTC allows no official channel for chargebacks and the only reason that one ever happened was because of a software fluke, virtually the only significant software fluke so far, which is pretty good for a piece of software that handles millions of dollars.
Do these FUDpeople just not think?
If I were a merchant I'd be glad to use a payment service with such a low risk of double-spends. Give me bitcoin with its 1 accidental $10,000 double-spend any day over Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/Amex/Etc with its cumulative millions of intentional double-spends and double spend feature available on request via official channel.
The only way we could dissuade merchants from adopting bitcoin is by introducing a double-spend feature into the client where you could request that a centralized authority charge back your money from a merchant. Then it'd be just like the credit cards. Oh and jack the fee to like 5%. THAT would be a great way to deter merchants. Not a fluke block-chain fork that is fixed immediately.
In fact, you could easily implement a fork-detection system: whenever a fork(i.e., two branches with more than one block) is detected, wait for more confirmations until one branch stops growing, this is not something requires protocol overhauling or even client reprogramming. |
|
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin is doing much better then the global credit payment systems at their startup stages, and some complementary fork-detection systems could be fairly easy to implement.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
