Show Posts
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
|
I think it would be just huge since they need to compete with eBay, Amazon. 11 Main is located in California (San Mateo) - the most BTC - friendly state. Discuss
|
|
|
Did mr. Jeff Bezos just pay for the publication and is trying to say that the future is, if course, an Amazon coin?
|
|
|
So it uses a lot of crapcoins but not bitcoin? Why exactly?
because crapcoins are harmless. Only bitcoin carries serious threat to their potential facebookcoin
|
|
|
Who is gonna mine then? The hashingpower cannot grow exponentially indefinitely. We are going to hit a plateau at some point since there is no free energy in this world.
|
|
|
Much confusion Many disingenuous Such fail
Personally I am not buying this. I want the replay from somebody who is grown up.
|
|
|
That's totally impossible!! Bitcoin Foundation can't able to do that. First, it's not a centralized foundation and second it's just impossible for anyone to remove the 21M limitation.
The Foundation is the first step towards BTC centralization. It's like: if you need international adoption and investors, you need centralization and controlled inflation. No more "to da moon" -kinda stuff
|
|
|
So most of the optimistic expectations are coming from the assumption that the existing fragile hashpower disposition will be forever: 20%-ish for BTCGuild, 35%-ish for CEX.io, 5%-ish for Slush pool, the rest 40% for "unknown sources", etc. However, in case of global BTC adoption it is easy for major players to possess up to 99% of the whole network and leave the remaining 1% for Slush+CexIO+BTCGuild+the rest. And not necessarily that possessing 99% of the whole network will cause massive double spending. They will just keep the network with all the nodes. Of course, the "original" or "true" BTC fork will be alive and running on the garage ASICs, and used for minor bar tiping or something like that.
This is similar to gold rush in California: amateurs with shovels are gone since shoveling is no longer profitable; big cartels with heavy machinery are now doing the mining, capturing new territories and setting new rules of the game.
|
|
|
That's irrelevant to the topic. We were talking about the Bitcoin Foundation, and you switch to a conspiracy theory.
How about that?
There is an opinion that the Foundation is full of crap and controls nothing. I am just speculating that there is a possibility that the Foundation is not that harmless and powerless than it could appear at the first look. I almost guarantee the changes once the real big dogs start joining the Foundation.
|
|
|
How about the following conspiracy theory: US is preparing plan B: US dollar will no longer be trusted in the nearest future, US dept is off control, there is no way in increase the upper limit of it, etc. In other words US dollar "on the verge of collapse" and will go down to tubes in 10 years. So they decided to come up with cryptocurrency - a Bitcoin. But if US officials introduce BTC to public - they will be laugh out right on site. So they are asking MIT, Stanford teams to come up with the algorithm for BTC. Strict non-disclosure agreement had been signed. So the mysterious Satoshi is just a team of the brightest PhD students under control. Wide public loves something open source and revolutionary? You got it: BTC! Invented by anonymous guy who donated his invention to the public! Once BTC is adopted internationally, the real "Satoshi" (US) comes to the scene and adjusts the rules of the game. How about that?
Disclaimer: this is just speculation, I have no fricking idea who Satoshi really is and if US are smart enough to start the thing like BTC
|
|
|
Who knows what the poor masses having mBTC ballances decide to vote for in the future. Will be interesting anyway
Sure they will vote against those who have BTC and Kilo-BTC. The voting will be initiated by those who controls Mega-BTC
|
|
|
Say, at some point big banks and hedge funds make an agreement with core developers to remove the limitation of 21M and have the foundation vote for this? Is it possible in theory and on practice?
I think 51% miners need to accept 21M+ coins to have those mined coin's transactions be included in new blocks. If >50% miners agree ...this can happen but that would actually be the fall of their own wealth, coz services running on bitcoin will immediately shift to some alt. p.s. Bitcoin is not only protected by code, but also by market economics ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I think big players could easily control 90% or more of all hashing power. Say, a megapool driven by asics on hundreds of acres at Greenland or Alaska. Disclaimer: I am not going to spread FUD, just want to share some thoughts and find answers
|
|
|
My fucking god. The Bitcoin Foundation has no power. Realize that.
Let's say that at some point when big players enter the game, the foundation starts gaining the power. How about that? Do you honestly think they could EVER control Bitcoin? That every Bitcoin user would fall into a synchronized team with them? So many Bitcoiners hate them it's unimaginable. No 'big players' can change that. Unless they 'crash' Bitcoin, which is so unlikely it hurts, they still won't have any power. The more I buy & mine, the more thoughts like that are coming to my mind. I doubt that big dogs will let lots of people with their "20..50..100 and up" coins to become rich elite overnight.
|
|
|
The community would never allow it. Part of the sheer brilliance of the protocol is that it requires consensus.
The consensus between core devs and big players could be reached. And a new blackchain is introduced to masses, while legacy blockchain is still running until it's extinction. How about that?
|
|
|
My fucking god. The Bitcoin Foundation has no power. Realize that.
Let's say that at some point when big players enter the game, the foundation starts gaining the power. How about that?
|
|
|
Then the world would laugh and quietly ignore such nonsense.
But worry not, such craziness won't occur. It's not under anyone's control except consensus of the community.
Even if the core devs vote to remove the 21M limit, it still won't make it so.
But big investors already articulated their interest: they want BTC to be inflatable. Reasonable, but inflatable. Something like: yes, BTC is great, innovative technology, but in order to make it useful international currency, it needs to be inflatable. Say, 1-5M bitcoins a year. The general population ("the community") will eat this no problem. Early adopters will be pissed off for sure, but they are in minority.
|
|
|
So frustrated for buying just 10 coins when the price was $420.. Also missed very nice $380 price this April: I was on a Caribbean trip that time and was completely away from internet, cell phone..
|
|
|
Say, at some point big banks and hedge funds make an agreement with core developers to remove the limitation of 21M and have the foundation vote for this? Is it possible in theory and on practice?
|
|
|
now, where is that dickhead (igorr?) with his "down to da tubes" charts?
|
|
|
Edith Cresson the ex Prime Minister of France said Chinese people are like ants. Did you get this analogy from her?
nope. it was from explanation of one chinese guy: he explained how their "PBOC / BTC exchanges" relationship works: like "ant vs tree" (where "ant" -> any btc exchange, and "tree" : PBOC and/or government). Got the picture? ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs29.postimg.org%2Fzfzndzrvb%2Frandall_mons.png&t=665&c=NgiO72MD9Evyfw)
|
|
|
|