Bonjour J'ai découvert Bitcoin tout à fait par hasard. J'ai 75ans et je trouve cette idée géniale; Je lui souhaîte longue vie  Je crois que tu es le doyen du forum, Mifou60. J'espère avoir autant d'ouverture d'esprit que toi quand j'attendrai ton âge |
|
|
|
lol Should I create a poll or something?  |
|
|
|
|
Let's see how people would react in case of a bitcoin crash.
|
|
|
|
Wow. Most constructive first post ever. Thanks, realnowhereman.
+1 The guy has never posted here and yet he seems to know the code in full details. Amazing. I very much which Satoshi could answer those questions. |
|
|
|
As far as I know, electronic voting is a very difficult IT problem, pretty much as difficult as mental poker.
I doubt anyone will find a definitive solution here on this forum.
Yes, at least as difficult as electronic money... Good point. |
|
|
|
If you had a choice between losing a bank account or your facebook account, which would you choose?
Well, that very much depends on the amount of money you have on this account, doesn't it? I mean, in my bank account I must have something like three euros, so I coudn't care much less about losing this account. |
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, electronic voting is a very difficult IT problem, pretty much as difficult as mental poker.
I doubt anyone will find a definitive solution here on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Could bitcoin be used for a lot more for democratic processes?
/mode troll ON If you consider plutocracy to be a form of democracy, as I do, then the answer is yes. /mode troll OFF |
|
|
|
Imagine a small town with 10,000 people. This town lives more or less apart from the rest of the word. They have their own language, their own culture, and their own currency. It's a fiat currency, and it's purely electronic. People use it because to them it is just more convenient than using gold or silver. Their currency is totally decentralised, anonymous and it is called bitcoin. Now, some terrible natural disaster occurs: an earthquake, a volcanic eruption, whatever. Those ten thousand people have to leave their town and travel around the world to find a place to live. They are dispatched in several countries where they learn the language and culture. But everywhere they go, they find that people use a currency that they consider inferior. Those currencies are controled by a bureaucratic elite, and there is no way to have financial privacy using these currencies. So our small town people keep in touch between one another, and they keep exchanging the local currency against their bitcoins. Basically they never store any significative amount of the local currency, as they know it would be ripped by inflation. Instead, they only store their bitcoins. When they need to buy something, they just sell some of their bitcoins to one of the small town people who has local currencies to get rid of. And then they can proceed to the paiement in order to buy stuffs. You get my point, right? Now, how many people are there on this forum already? |
|
|
|
If it's in Europe, it should be in London.
Can you please explain why? I am french, I'm the #3 most prolific writer on this forum and as such I am offended by this proposition. |
|
|
|
Fantastic! Is that in the print edition too? Yup--May 9th. Well, that's it---I'm buying while it's still cheap. With that sort of press we're bound to get a few thousand newcomers buying in next month. yep but since print readers are typically a little slower to jump on something hopefully it will cause a slow gradual rise and not a hard spike and then a corrective drop. Wait, there are still print readers who use the Internet? Wait, there are still people who use paper money?  Gavin looks pretty badass! Great article! Could be historical pic that one I think ... not very often you get a guy burning paper money .... and he has the sense of purpose and tools to back it up ... (e.g. bitcoin home-page up on screen in background) I'm pretty sure Gavin did not actually burn those notes. Since Gavin organises the bitcoin faucet, it would have been silly not to sell those notes against bitcoins in order to add them to the faucet. |
|
|
|
I do wish you would stop pontificating about the weaknesses or flaws of the bitcoin network and either attack it directly or promote something superior. Otherwise you come across as nothing more than an educated troll.
Where do your motives lie sir?
I don't understand this sort of personal attack and find it extremely annoying and distracting. I'm offering analysis. My motives aren't relevant, but I've already expressed my view as (1) impressed, (2) practically skeptical, and (3) morally skeptical. I don't have to commit to pay significant money to mount an attack myself in order to point out that it's easier for others to do it than it typically supposed, nor do I have anything superior I'm interested in promoting. I can't stand the overuse of the word "troll" in these contexts; it's just extraordinarily annoying schoolyard-type bullying. Save the bitterness for people who are actually doing something objectionable, please, and simply ignore an analytical argument if you don't find it interesting or helpful. I suppose I should be happy that at least you consider me "educated."  You said that whether or not calling a group of attackers a bitcoin "central bank" was just a matter of semantics and was not relevant. I could as well argue that calling you a troll is just a matter of semantics too. |
|
|
|
The function of the central bank is provided by the network; controlling half the network's hashing power confers the powers of a central bank. The rest is just semantics, I think.
It seems to me that you miss one point. The attack that was discussed here doesn't only consist in gathering more than 50% of CPU. I wouldn't mind if anybody does, as long as he processes transaction correctly. But in order to use any priviledged power, such a big miner would have to run a modified version of the software, and basically the only thing he could do would be to hurt the network by refusing to process incoming transactions or double spending some. They could not mint arbitrary amounts of bitcoin, for instance. So it would not have the powers of a central bank. |
|
|
|
|
Stop talking about "the central bank of the bitcoin economy". There is simply no such thing, apart in your mind.
There could be a large collusion of attackers, but since they would try to disrupt the bitcoin network, there is no way we can call them "the bitcoin central bank". In a centralised economy, a central bank is supposed to organise and protect the economy, not to destroy it.
|
|
|
|
Another way of putting the attack, in more clearly economic terms, is that in Bitcoin, the central bank is for sale -- at whatever cost it takes to provide on the order of half the hashing power of the network.
I'm not sure this is a correct way to see things. Spending money to do something is not an other way to say that you buy it. When you buy something, at the end you own it, which means that nobody can take it back from you if you don't want to sell. On the opposite, if at some point you spend enough money to acquire more than 50% of the bitcoin processing power, it doesn't belong to you anyway. Because at any moment someone else could do the same and take back the majority of CPU even if you don't agree with that. It's not a commercial transaction. |
|
|
|
Mi ne estas certe ke gxi estus vere utila, sed mi bonvolus ke iu tradukas la artikolon de Satosxio " http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" Bedauxrinde mia scieco de esperanto ne estas suficxa, do mi sole gxin ne povas traduki. |
|
|
|
|
Do, ni estas kvar esperantistoj, cxi tie?
Bone, bone.
|
|
|
|
Sure it would. The first transaction in every block is the special transaction that gives the miner his 50 bitcoin reward. If every light client were checking that transaction to keep the miners honest, there wouldn't be any way to collude, as the lightweight clients would reject the blocks themselves and keep searching the Bitcoin network for blocks that used the proper reward amount.
Yeah but this transaction is at the bottom of the Merkle tree, isn'it? This means that the light client should store a whole branch of the tree, which defeats the purpose of a "light" client I guess. Maybe we could restructure the Merkle tree and have the special transaction be on the top, just aside the root of all the other transactions. |
|
|
|
In reality, he doesn't even merit a response beyond mockery. The only reason why I did it was to try to counter his misinformation, in case someone actually takes his video seriously.
And you did a good job quite quickly. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Does this paper talk about anything new, or is it running over the same points discussed many times in the forums?
It's a nice summary anyway. And at no point the guy is making definitive assertions. Just reasonnable hypothesis. It seems to me the guy is quite impressed by bitcoin, and he wanted to make a sincere full report about it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
