 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
|
Bitcoin works. It has a track record. You are [mod edit: No insults allowed] and I don't have time to set you straight, assuming you even wanted to learn. I am just going to keep buying coins now while they are cheap.
The first are unbacked, fiat like bitcoin is now. Bitcoin is not a fiat currency. Fiat means imposed using force, usually by governments. Bitcoin is a voluntary currency. Bitcoin is, as hashcoin stated, a 'fiat like' currency. It shares one very important characteristic: no intrinsic value. Hashcoin, thanks for the pm. If you want to discuss an alternate currency distribution scheme on this forum, be prepared for some insults and/or, more irritating, misquotes. Although it's good to see some moderation going on these days, it's one of the reasons I don't bother too much to do too much discussing here (after trying e.g this http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15657.msg206521#msg206521). Another reason is that, although I think I'd know the perfect solution for a natural, logical distribution scheme, I don't have a proper solution for two other problems that I expect to lead to the downfall of Bitcoin. But, for the distribution, how 'bout (thanks to Ryan for part of this idea): - Mining blocks is rewarded only with transaction fee's, no coins are generated with it. - A 'special' transaction exists, where the 'in' does not refer to a previous transaction, but coins are generated by proof-of-work. (With proven 'difficulty' of a certain hash linear to the reward, hash of some previous block should e.g. be included to prevent double spending.) - Anyone can create and send as many of these transactions as he/she likes. No (noteworthy) inflation due to increasing moneysupply is to be expected, as one should be crazy to create more money if it's worth less than the cost of production. No (noteworthy, long-term) deflation is to be expected, as coins will be produced when appearently necessary. There could be temporary deflation if money-demand outpaces production facilities. There could be permanent inflation if money-demand shrinks (same as with the current Bitcoin). What is your incentive for early adopters of hashcoin?
I too think there's way too much incentive for early adopters now ( http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19303.msg241662#msg241662), and it will keep hindering it's acceptance. In normal life early-adopters are prepared to pay for interacting with new, cool technology (and for being early-adopter). One more thing. Build a new currency, call it hashcoins [...]
Have a look at http://www.hashcash.org/ before you call it hashcoin... |
|
|
|
'Fraid you just proved his point. [EDIT] Just had to add these... |-) You couldn't be more wrong.
Wrong? Nope, certainly not wrong.
"Fraid" you're just as clueless as he is. In the first quote I'm talking about him being wrong and in the second I'm talking about him saying I'm wrong. Wtf is with the trolls on this forum, they just can't seem to get a handle on logic and reality..  My point was that you were talking about him not being able to be more wrong and you being certainly not wrong. Am I right or am I wrong? |
|
|
|
GTFO here. Give me break.
'Fraid you just proved his point. [EDIT] Just had to add these... |-) You couldn't be more wrong.
Wrong? Nope, certainly not wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
"Are the stolen bitcoins currently being sold on mtgox?"
Is a very interesting question. What if they were? Would mtgox take action? How to prove they are stolen? Maybe they were paid or given away for something?
|
|
|
|
but If bitcoin fails in 2-3months, its better to sell the card. After bitcoin failure, there will be like 10000000000 gpus on ebay
Don't worry, there'll be a Bitcoin replacement where those GPU's can be used. And otherwise you could connect them together and create your own virtual reality in which you are rich. Hey, isn't that exactly... |
|
|
|
I don't agree with Namecoin. People shouldn't have to pay or mine for domains. There should be a huge number of TLD, from .a to .zzzzzzz for example, and anyone should be able to register domains for free. Of course it would be better if DNS was decentralized and P2P.
The Domain Name System has to be hosted. In your proposal there's a lot of Top Level Domains to be hosted (where now there's relatively few). Who do you suggest is going to pay for that hosting? |
|
|
|
- Difficult to understand concepts of crypto-currency (3+ hours minimum, tech savvy)
- Difficult to buy
- Difficult to sell
- Major issues of trust in relation to transactions
- Major issues of security relating to local storage
- Extreme difficulty in understanding proper security practices (1-2 hours, tech savvy)
- Extreme investment of time involved in learning requisite knowledge relating to wallets/coins (1+ hours, tech savvy)
- Extreme investment of time involved in learning requisite knowledge relating to using bitcoin exchanges (1+ hours for financial savvy)
- Fear of losing coins to computer or network failures/virtual currency less tangible than paper or plastic
- Fear of negative Governmental intervention
- Perception of facilitating illegal activity to a greater extent and ease than cash
- No consumer protections by law
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt First time I see the term FUD used as FUD. |
|
|
|
Please tell me what "enormous risks" the finders of the first blocks took? Which cost them about half a million (current 'difficulty') times less computer power (and energy) than what newcomers have to compete for now?
Lots of time, work, and their own money. Especially for the people who spent the time coding it and setting up the initial networks. Really, the same risks that people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Eric Schmidt, along with their first few employees, took when they created their software revolutions. Lots of time and work I could understand, 'their own money' you'd have to explain. Anyhow, doesn't convince me as "enormous risks"... |
|
|
|
This seems like a good idea. Is there something wrong with it?
Is this proposal (or a similar one) discussed in another thread?
Similar: Let spammers (and everyone) pay for spreading transactions. Section 4.3 of http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf. |
|
|
|
|
For bitcoin examples and people wanting to experiment with sending bitcoins, I propose a standard address be used. May I propose this address?
1JEiV9CiJmhfYhE7MzeSdmH82xRYrbYrtb
|-)
|
|
|
|
I think restricting newbies is a good idea. They tend to always post the same topic (Bitcoin is a scam LoL!), [...] Can't we leave it to the reader to judge Newbies who shout "Bitcoin is a scam!" without proper arguments? And hell, I'd like to know if someday a Newbie comes along and does have these arguments! |
|
|
|
|
No, I was watching "The Day of the Triffids" that day. You can browse the Newbie section, and I am. But:
- Someone googles on some Bitcoin subject.
- Lands in a thread here, not in the Newbie section.
- Has a useful contribution, and is willing to share it with us.
- He/She can't. At least not at the correct spot.
Can't tell how much (or little) we miss this way ofcourse.
|
|
|
|
They changed it to 5 posts and 4 hours online now, I think. Hence my ability to post.  Ok, I missed that, sounds a little more reasonable. Still, someone useful might not want to make that effort. |
|
|
|
|
Recently all Newbies were restricted to a 'Newbies' board, not being allowed to post elsewhere anymore until they reach 50 posts.
I know there's a lot of complaints about Newbies not understanding things and posting irrelevant things. But by excluding them from the discussions we might very well miss interesting views from Newbies who do have something useful to say and just turn away. That, and we might become very self-righteous ourselves, possibly banning valuable retort.
|
|
|
|
*facepalm*
Section 5, Conclusion. You don't understand any of the important decisions that went into the design of bitcoin. Either that or you are a very special kind of troll.
i note that forum.newbitcoin.org is all the way up to eight posts now. five of which belong to mr. appelbaum. ...and one of which includes this bit of prescience: You seem to be right, looks like not many people are ready to anticipate to what's coming. Think their 'investments' might be blurring their view. Or I'm just plain wrong of course... Where I first intended to ignore any posts containing any off-topics, disdain or worse (#56) of which above quotes are only an example (much more in the 21.000.000 limit thread), I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to waste my time in this way. Therefore I will not continue to post in this thread. I am definitly willing to continue discussing what has been discussed, as long as it is done in a civilised manner. I can be reached at the forum mentioned in the above quote. |
|
|
|
1. Most important to understand is that a perfectly natural system for distributing a cryptocurrency in a fair, envy-less way exists. There is no need for a cryptocurrency to have an artificial limit. There will be inflation, yes. The second coin will cause 100% inflation, the 3rd coin 50%, the 4th coin 33%, etc. If inflation kicks in, mining will become less attractive and will be supported by mainly transaction fees (that are not newly created coins and don't drive up inflation further).
It wouldn't be envy-less at all.. Soon enough the mining will be far beyond the means of the average joe (and thus the new coins would flow to an oligarchy anyway).. an inflationary system just means the miners get to tax savings as well as people actively transacting.. worse still, unlike the transaction fee system where transactees get to offer how much they want to pay for their transaction (and risk it not being processed), you would have a built in fixed rate of taxation that doesn't respond to market conditions. Please see my post #14 in this thread for what I meant by envy-less. And for me that concludes this thread, I feel I've said what needed be said and am starting to repeat myself. Thank you all for your kind attention. If you have more questions, remarks or whatever, feel free to contact me at http://bitcoinforum.org. |
|
|
|
Your pruning suggestion will not work, because the number of accounts will also grow.
And you don't have to change the block chain format for achieving that anyway.
1. There you have me! I know of no proper solution for that either unfortunately... 2. I only worked out (with a simulation, math was too complicated for me) how much more space. I didn't feel like working this out for the current Bitcoin transaction-storing blockchain, didn't feel that that was up to me. 3. It would surprise me if the block chain format wouldn't have to be changed for it, but must admit I didn't give that too much thought as there's more issues that I'd like it to change for. 1. The solution is that computer ressources will continue growing exponentially. Bitcoin data will do definately, no matter whether you prune some trash. That might or might not be true. A well defined system should not have to depend on exponentially growing computer power. 3. The client can just download the blockchain and throw it away, keeping account balances and hashes of the last block in a local database.
If a new node comes along, one has to convince this node that account balances are correct. Multiple transactions lead to one account balance (that's why they'd take more storage). If only the account balance is stored, the transaction information cannot be recovered. If a hash of the transactions is stored in the chain, this hash cannot be used to prove account balances. Therefore a hash of account balances should be stored in the chain. |
|
|
|
Finally, I'm afraid you -- like so many others -- are missing the point. I'd be happy if all of the mining ended today. It doesn't produce any real wealth and simply dilutes the value of those who have invested in Bitcoin. If people want money they should add value to the economy, not come up with some crazy scheme to print it themselves. Imagine if we all just printed our own money. No work would ever get done!
Those who feel The Fed unfairly monopolizes production of currency are delusional if they think the world would be better if everyone could print as much money as they like. None of it would be worth anything.
A mathematically fair (envy-free) initial distribution doesn't exist as far as I know, therefore we have to get rid of the idea of an initial distribution. And switch to a permanent distribution, where everyone get's at all time as many bitcoins as the work he / she (his /her computer) performs. Unlike the Fed, you cannot print the money without doing the work. |
|
|
|
How is this different? I now know Steve won't respond to me, I'd like to understand your position since you seem to agree with him.
I'll respond to any post by anyone that is on-topic, does not contain disdain or false accusations. EDIT: Dammit, did I just respond to a post that had a false accusation? |
|
|
|
Addressed in Post #57 above, by me, which I see you chose to ignore. The argument about "late comers" not accepting "unfair distribution" is ridiculous. They do, and have.
And if you read my last post (#60) you should know why I chose to do so. |
|
|
|
|
