Have you checked the box to keep you logged in? Do you automatically wipe all cookies etc? Are you always logging on with the same ip, that is without proxy & without a dynamic ip.

I think he's complaining about not being able to trade his BTC elsewhere while waiting for a withdrawal.  I don't particularly enjoy having to process manual withdrawals either, but I'm willing to do it because I VALUE YOUR BTC.

I do agree with his assessment that it is not wise to have more on the exchange than you're willing to commit to for a day or so.

I also sympathize with people wanting to move their BTC around quickly, however I think it's better to have slower moving BTC than no BTC at all when the hackers come calling.


I wonder if I setup an option in the site:  Keep my coins in the [ ] HOT WALLET [X] COLD WALLET

Would people really want that?  I mean, I could do it.  And the users that opt to keep theirs in the hot wallet get no withdrawal limits, but also get their balance zeroed out if it's ever stolen?

Chrome.

I haven't had an issue since ~48 hours after I first reported it. There were never any other problems accessing other sites. Brake line just rusted (rear line over dif.). Cable guys work Sundays. Internet ran out of images of goats. Sorry, BadBear. Back to stealing barn wood this evening, Josh.

I had a revelation the other night - why don't we build a decentralized, open-source crypto-currency that is pegged (protocol-wise) to the US Dollar, which could anytime be bought with and sold for Bitcoin automatically (and perhaps exclusively), so to speak? It would be exactly like Bitcoin, with confirmations and all that, but with no mining and with an infinite supply.

Just imagine a separate downloadable client with a BTC address that would keep the received bitcoins in it's protocol (hell knows how, but it doesn't sound impossible) and provide you with a corresponding (at the then-current exchange rate) number of "coins", each of which you can always "cash out", again within the client, for $1 worth of Bitcoin. Whenever you cash out, you get paid automatically in Bitcoin at the current BTC/USD exchange rate, so you end up receiving the same exact money you brought in.

I could see this working flawlessly when the BTC appreciates, but when it depreciates there would be a deficit of BTC in the system. Here's an example:

John has 1 BTC (current price $100) and buys 100 Virtual USD coins with it. In the meantime, the BTC appreciates to $200 let's say, and when he (or anybody else, really) "cashes out" to Bitcoin, they receive 0.5 BTC, with half of the Bitcoin staying in the system.

And here's the counterexample, John has 1 BTC (current price $100) and buys 100 Virtual USD coins with it. In the meantime, the BTC depreciates to $50, and when he "cashes out" to Bitcoin, he must receive 2 BTC, when bringing in just 1 BTC. Is it possible that the first situation counterbalances the second one? In other words, can mass adoption solve this clusterfuck? I bet it can, if Bitcoin stays deflationary

Can a sustainable crypto-currency be built on the description above, and if yes, wouldn't this solve the volatility problem we have with Bitcoin, replacing it as a transaction currency and leaving it be a commodity, next to gold and silver?

Would be interesting to see what you guys think

Look at D&T's math in the post above yours. Transaction verification can't happen at non-trivial transaction rates on general purpose CPUs with block times that short. If you want 1 minute blocks with PayPal-like transaction volumes and acceptable orphan rates you've made it so all full nodes require ASICs just for transaction verification, let alone mining.

I can see that being a requirement at some point, but not this early in the adoption curve. Maybe when we've got a "market cap" in the tens of trillions of dollars equivalent and the transaction rate is somewhere in the 100,000+/second range it would be reasonable to expect full nodes to run on specialized hardware, but by then the economy will be so well developed that there won't be any need to shorten the block time because any problems that a 600 second interval cause would have been long since solved.

Yeah I don't think you understand how modern DDOS work.  The attacker hits your upstream provider with hundreds of GB/s of traffic, the simply null route you to deal with the flood.  It is why DDOS are so hard to deal with.  The pipe to your server simply becomes saturated beyond your bandwidth capabilities.  You can't filter our the good nodes if they can't get to your server.

The idea that you know all miners so you can whitelist them is somewhat disconcerting as well.  You have essentially created the central mining agency.  The entity which all miners must work with to have any chance at efficient mining.  Not really sure that is the "solution" as opposed to simply using a more efficient (large) block interval.


Even at 10MB we are talking, a not so insignificant delay.  

Still lets assume for a second you overcome the philosophical and vulnerability issues of a centralized clearing house. This still means a 2 hop propogation delay.  

The critical window = (time to transmit to clearing house) + (time for clearing house to validate block) + (time to transmit to other miners) + (time for other miners to validate)

Today validating a 500 KB block can take upwards of 300 ms.  10MB would be more like 6000 ms.  Lets assume protocol efficiencies cut that in half say 3000 ms.  Remember there are two validations unless miners are just going to blindly (100% implicit trust) the data provided by the clearing house.  Say the clearing house has 100 Mbps synchronous lot latency connectivity.  The transmit time from miner to clearing house then becomes 5*8/100 = 0.4 seconds.  If there are (a guess) 50 miners using the clearing house the time to transmit to the miners is another 50*10*8/100 = 40 seconds.

Under this naively optimistic scenario we are talking 0.4 + 3+ 40 + 3 = 46.3 seconds for full validation and double hop propagation to 50 mining peers.  With Bitcoin's 600 second average block time this means an orphan rate of ~8%.  With LTC it is more like 26%.  With the idiotic 30 second block intervals used by some scamcoins it is something on the order of 80% orphans.

Now there are solutions to make block propagation more efficient.  One (not possible on Bitcoin but could be used on an altcoin) would be to use a simplified transaction structure.  I have done some modeling and see a roughly 60% reduction in block size is possible (i.e. 1.7x as many tx in the same sized block).  For Bitcoin/Litecoin a soft fork where block is separated into header and tx set would allow more efficient pre-propogation of transactions.  Still at the end of the day smaller block intervals are going to face scaling challenges much quicker and an increased loss of security due to orphans is inevitable.

bitcoin is totally out of the formal hierarchy and it should stay like that as long as it's there it will take on the conformists power greedy sociopaths

Yeah, show me an anarchistical community that was stable enough to invent quantum mechancs or microprocessors or the internet...
I mean, you've got to love anarchy for advancing our society from tribal hunter-gatherer to the information age, right?
And history is written by the anarchist line running through the development of human society, right?

I don't know how to bring it to you but anarchy by itself cannot be sustained outside a well-rooted centralized system without breaking apart into pure violence. Anarchy, when push come to shove, means every man on his own.
I mean, all is rosy and peachy if the big rooted centralized system provides the anarchists with resources.
But what happens if you are hungry and noone wants to give you food and there is no government to force them to?
Well, as an anarchist you take the right in your own hands and take the damn food.
See the problem?

If you really want to save BitCoin and keep the bankers/forex traders from having such an effect on BTC's value? Quit comparing it to USD. Take only BTC/LTC/devcoin/etc. and ignore these other fiat currencies. As long as cryptocurreny values are compared to fiat currencies and we do not set (and stick with) what we feel the value to be, then we'll continue giving the Big Banks and forex traders all the power they need to destabilize our nascent economy.

http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP010.htm
Gold details there.

Bitcoin as of a while ago, are also as short-able as an ETF.
https://exante.eu/press/news/314/
"Additionally, they can also initiate a short position in the shares of the Bitcoin Fund even without selling Bitcoin – this is more or less like an ETF or contract for difference (CFD) instrument."

This means you can drive the price like a car if you have access to enough fiat currency.

Agreed and I misunderstood although (possibly my reading of) your wording seems to indicate a sinister intent.


The company is able to bill the trust for the small management fee (unstated but 0.5% annually is a common amount) and the NAV will decline over time but I wouldn't call it "only they benefit".  If there is no benefit to shareholders (of the trust not the management company) then they won't buy it.  I mean it is an open market.  Investors will weigh the value/utility (if any) of the fund vs the cost (in terms of annual management fee).  They buy because the value outweighs the cost.

I would argue there is a lot of potential utility here:

* A company which had a margin brokerage account could accept BTC for goods and hedge volatility between time of acquiring and time of selling by selling short the fund.
* Speculators looking to go long could use margin to extend their leverage at lower cost and risk compared to systems like bitfinex.
* Long term holders of physical BTC (in cold storage) could sell covered calls against the fund for USD cashflow without needing to periodically sell off BTC on exchanges of unknown risk.
* Buying calls and puts would be a more sophisticated way of trading Bitcoins without dealing with entities of unknown trust.
* Someone looking to borrow BTC but sell them for USD could hedge out the currency risk partially or fully through the use of options.  If nothing else buying way out of the money calls would be a method of capping currency risk.

That is all.

funny how you never hear about anyone selling on here right now at $72 or $73. They are selling for a reason but you never hear from them? Are they dumb or are they smart to sell? The sellers have to be thinking I am smart sellling at this price right?

If I was willing a few days ago to buy at $100, then I can only see this as a good thing.  I'm getting the bitcoins that I buy at a MUCH cheaper cost than I was already willing to pay.  How valuable they are to me is not dependent upon how valuable they are to the people who are buying and selling at MtGox (or any other exchange).  I know how much I'm willing to pay for them.  Anything less is a great discount.  Anything more and its time to stop buying and just hold on to them or spend them where possible.  I adjust my opinion about value based on their security, and utility.