...
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
...
Absolutely. And the higher the unit value of a bitcoin goes, into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars, then everyone who is holding it and mining it will have such a vested interest in its success that this will force a consensus on important changes. I think we saw this in March when all differences were put aside while the chain-fork was dealt with. It was different in 2011 when coins were worth little, so messing around with new ideas had little cost. No one will sacrifice their $1000 coins for penny alt-coins. |
|
|
|
For the record, you can be skeptical of your government without believing crap like this.
Absolutely. Anyone who wants a deep insight into the abuse of government power should read Noam Chomsky's works, not trawl fringe sites on the internet. |
|
|
|
I watched the Bitcoin 2013 conference talk on YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LQu-eIOO0&list=PLUOP0P68GJ3BGjfqoLLnzAefk3ZzXQtJ7&index=9) earlier today about why you should invest in bitcoin. In it, Demeester said that if bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency, replacing the dollar, the price will end up being $500,000 / Bitcoin. So that's likely the upper limit on bitcoin price. I certainly wouldn't complain if that happens, it'd make me a millionaire and I don't even have all that many bitcoins. But I'd be very surprised if it ends up being THAT successful. I watched that talk a month ago and it is certainly worth watching for sure. I think that is why, even if some consider BTC a risky investment, that it is actually smart to buy at least a few. It is much cheaper than a trip to Vegas if you like to gamble and there are some pretty good odds, especially compared to playing the lottery. At this point the risk of not investing is something I think people should consider. That super-high dollar value is very possible provided that some key software improvements are done to Bitcoin for scaling, also that governments continue to abuse their fiats to death with zero interest rates, a bankster-controlled shadow-banking system, CB money printing and stomach-churning annual sovereign deficits. Seems to me like all of the above are baked in the cake. |
|
|
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoinby default, it's 125 connections. Your client will make 8 outgoing connections and accept up to (125-8) incoming connections. Those take a while to accumulate, so you need to leave your computer on for a while. It would be nice to see the number of incoming as well. It normally just shows "8". |
|
|
|
Doesn't PRWeb function as a paid intermediary for releases? Its about as relevant as someone pimping their crafts on Etsy.
Yes. PRWeb is as biased as a radio broadcast from USSR's Stalin. Forexminute is minute in terms of business and web-traffic. This forum is tens of thousands of places higher in internet site rankings. |
|
|
|
Offtopic:
Wow, LTC is considered a Scam coin?
Isn't Scrypt Jane an added feature, Designed for ASIC resistance , it makes sure even any disruptive tech doesnt have as significant effect on the network as that is seen on BTC. Since people have put so much of money into ASICs BTC can't adopt Scrypt.
Scrypt is not ASIC resistant at all. FYI: it was supposed to be GPU resistant too, and LTC FPGAs are being developed right now. That said, LTC was very good to me and made me make a lot of money. But, it has nothing fundamentally different compared to BTC, Scrypt was a nice idea (ASICs are indeed a threat for crypto coins IMO) but a failed one. Theres just no easy way to be ASIC resistant, in fact it may be impossible. LTC is just a BTC clone, thus calling it a "scam coin" is pretty accurate IMO. What is annoying is that LTC just takes the Bitcoin dev work and packages it as new versions of LTC. The time is really overdue for the LTC dev to do something like blockchain pruning which could actually be used by Bitcoin dev, instead of all this one-way traffic. |
|
|
|
|
There have been loads of threads on this subject.
Bottom line is that there is no need to worry about a QC threat to Bitcoin in this decade or the next (or longer :-)
a) The capabilities of any QC that can be built today with one that can brute force a private key is like comparing Red Baron's bi-plane with a stealth fighter.
b) All fiat transactions in financial systems done over the internet, indeed, internet security itself would also be at risk, not just Bitcoin.
c) Different hashing algorithms can be used to replace SHA-256 that are much more resistant to QC problem solving.
|
|
|
|
Currently there is no consensus among developers on whether this restriction will EVER be lifted.
Incorrect. Progress is being made on it: The block size will be raised, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.
And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.
If you want to be helpful, please organize a list of objections to raising the block size limit and responses to those objections.
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
I'll soon be writing up a plan for how we can safely raise the block size limit.
RE: central planning:
No central planning is why I would like to eliminate the hard, upper blocksize limit entirely, and let the network decide "how big is too big."
RE: "the plan" : The plan from the beginning was to support huge blocks. The 1MB hard limit was always a temporary denial-of-service prevention measure.
This, plus the blockchain optimization work, once live, will enable the next leg of growth for Bitcoin and see the widespread market usage which is needed to justify a four-figure fx rate. |
|
|
|
...
I am talked about behind my back constantly
...
When you have reached the point that this is the most irrelevant thing in your life - then congratulations, you have reached adulthood. |
|
|
|
Bullshit? I wanted to get at least one. I think they are very useful.
I have used one for several months. They are a fantastic security device. |
|
|
|
|
Franky1 seems to be polite and asking reasonable questions.
A sound project will have a website and activity outside this forum, other people participating, photos, feedback, a track record of prior success. Is this the case with yours?
|
|
|
|
you guys still waiting for op to deliver ?
Yep. This still sums up my thoughts on the OP It's like one of those TV documentaries about the Bigfoot where they are going to do DNA tests on skin and hair samples, but by the end of it you still haven't learned anything, and the subject is as opaque as ever.
|
|
|
|
<MagicalTux> we will continue processing withdrawals next week, but limit to 1 million USD per day Congrats to everyone who took a ~10% loss betting against MtGox's solvency.  This statement screams cash flow issues. Why limit to $1milliion USD per day ? and not like 100 wires per day? if they are having issues with overload of request,they should limit the request and not the amount. Absolutely. And long delay problems with euro withdrawals are also strange as the gox notice specifies USD only |
|
|
|
|
Yes. Colored coins is the major casualty, however, this would seem to be a perfect market for Peter Todd's off-chain solution of fidelity bonded banks and might be a real-world proof of concept for the whole idea.
|
|
|
|
Thinking that for the moment this withdrawl issue is temporary. I don't know how many people are going to need fiat so urgently that they are willing to dump for $80. I could be wrong though.
I agree, unless of course Mt Gox has the same 2-week clock which Butterfly Labs swears by. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
