Ok, this thread is officially retarded. Enjoy.
I hope whoever you have a talk to in the future enjoys your way of discussing something  |
|
|
|
The only way for an inflationary currency to work is impose it using violence.
absolutely untrue. they just have to become the standard currency somehow, violence being one way. in fact, the first inflationary currencies were NOT imposed by violence. gold smiths took gold on deposit for receipts, which became currency. guess what happened. |
|
|
|
Again, you fail to understand. The protocol is what enforces everything. The client can do whatever it want's but unless it conforms to the protocol it will do nothing but produce non-transactions that are not included in the block chain. This is something which is voted upon by the network as a whole, the only way to 'win' the vote is for there to be a global software update. Which, at this point, is not likely to happen.
hello? I usually dont argue with "you fail to understand", but you don't. all I'm saying is that the majority will use the official client. you aren't saying there'll never be a new version again, are you? Thus the advice to create your own fork to implement features that you would like to see which are not supported by the Bitcoin protocol.
there are no changes to the protocol needed. |
|
|
|
Being an influence of Keynes is nothing to be proud of, on the contrary. They would be worthless because there would be no demand for them, regardless of their number. But please, prove me wrong.
you are already proven wrong. currencies are accepted today even though there is inflation. built-in devaluation as is proposed here is just an "honest" form of inflation, i.e. you don't see the value of your money decrease, but you actually see your money decrease. there isnt much difference, acceptance-wise. |
|
|
|
WRONG:
If more than 50% of miners are pissed enough that Millions of BTC get shifted around but nearly no fees are being paid, they can as I said 51%-attack the network and force fees as they wish. If the official client doesn't do what they want to, that's the official client's problem.
that is what I called a "revolt" above. how likely is that about to happen? about as likely as someone actually succeeding after you said "f.. your idea, go fork the blockchain if you want it". users and miners are going to accept whatever the official client enforces, unless the developers of that client screw up big time. That currency deflation is a bad thing is fairly conventional economics, and the problem of the 'liquidity trap' is very real.
there's actually pretty good evidence that deflation isnt a problem at all, like during the industrial revolution or after wars. but I don't wanna turn this into an age-old debate about economics. |
|
|
|
You talk like that is the only client that people can use, which I know very clearly is not the case.
no I dont. see my post above. |
|
|
|
First of all, it is a meaningless statement. It is a bit like saying "we have not yet decided on the value of Bitcoin". Miners may presently exclude transactions which do not have fees associated with them. And users may include fees as they wish. But presently there is no need to do so because the transaction load is trivial compared to what the network can handle with really no additional overhead. When users choose to include transaction fees at this time it is more like saying "thank you random miner for helping to make our network strong, here is a small donation".
the regular client already enforces some transaction fee rules to avoid spam and DOS attacks. when it is decided by only a few guys that the official client only accepts transaction with a certain transaction fee and there is no "revolt" by users, miners cant do anything about it. |
|
|
|
The only viable way to dictate any particular 'fee schedule' is to successfully execute 50% attack and split the network by not including into your winning chain any blocks generated by miners not conforming to dictated fee schedule. Good lucks with that.
bitcoin is not as decentralized as people think. notwithstanding a major screwup by those guys, > 50% will adopt what the handful of people who are developing the official client decide should be the default. and they apparently say: we're not sure yet what transaction fees will look like.
With your system bitcoins would become worthless and nobody would use them. They would not circulate because nobody would accept them. But you odnt have to believe me. Go and start your own currency. Its a small change in the code, its very easy. Go and do it.
I hope someone does, even though I'm not convinced of the idea. you can't be against central control of currencies and against competition of currencies at the same time. |
|
|
|
aral, we've just seen, wave after wave after wave of noobs coming in and screaming 'unfair! I cannot get 1% of all bitcoins in existence! Let's change the rules right now or I'l throw a tantrum!'
I dont see how this is anything against early adopters. it is about the price structure of transaction fees, which AFAIK are not yet decided upon and subject to change. the FAQ or something says so. |
|
|
|
That doesn't fix anything. If it is a directly proportional function, then there isn't really enough incentive for spending now vs later. Because it is directly proportional, all that it does is change the prices that people are willing to accept on both sides of the table. It would cause some problems early on, but eventually, the market would stabilize and you'd have to find some other way of upsetting it again.
I'm not advocating this, but it isnt as easy as that to dismiss. there is a whole economic school proposing this for "regular" money. google "freigeld" or "freiwirtschaft". I'm not sure though how many resources you'll find in english since it was started by a german: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_GesellExactly. Not to mention that basically bitcoins would be worthless and would disappear since nobody would want to hold them.
thats the point. > velocity of money |
|
|
|
OK, so I'll generate a new receiving address every day. You don't know the age of my wallet, all you can know is the age of the receiving addresses. You don't even have any idea what receiving addresses belong to my wallet. And even if you did know the age of my wallet and all of the receiving addresses inside of it, I can always just generate a brand new wallet whenever I wanted.
doesnt matter. when transaction fee is a steady function of time transferring your coins to a new address every day will cost you as much or more than just keeping it where it is. |
|
|
|
|
that mybitcoin is actually currently under attack using leaked mtgox passwords is something about mybitcoin
|
|
|
|
you are basically proposing the "Freigeld" theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeldin particular what gsell calls "cash flow safe". whatever you think of it, the fact that there seems to no decision yet still about transaction fees shows you that bitcoin is in a very early stage. when all is said and done, bitcoin could be Freigeld. or not. no decision yet. |
|
|
|
|
keep in mind that peter's show is about protecting purchasing power and prudent income-generating investing.
bitcoin qualifies for neither. if you specifically asked schiff what he though about competing currencies and explained the bitcoin concept I'm pretty sure he would voice support for it.
he just wouldn't invest his networth in it, and neither should anyone else.
|
|
|
|
that would be 500 mil. bitcoins. sensationalist? |
|
|
|
Actually, I am positive I am one of the oldest users of bitcoin. Helped Satoshi take this off the ground.
then why dont you know that the robber - if successful - can launder his bitcoins without MtGox? just sell and buy on another exchange. exchange one BTC for another. go back to MtGox for withdrawal. Those other exchangers you talk about, only exist because of MT GOX, they exchange only trusting that big mt gox is there to back up their exchange. Like bank of america and the FED. Its takes huge balls to start exchanging coins for real HARD cash, MT gox took the lead, other followed trusting. do you understand? so? you seem to imply that the robber cant get away with shit because MtGox is the only way to cash out and they know which BTC got stolen. not the case. |
|
|
|
how is it known that its that address?
1. there was only one large trade on this day. it originated from this address, which wasnt touched for a week before that. 2. apparently it was known before that day that this address belongs to MtGox, see for example: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17897.0 |
|
|
|
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client,
they can, if others agree to that, as I've mentioned. also known as forking the blockchain (or creating a new one). still, out of thin air. forking the block chain would be an enormously expensive and foolhardy venture, and creating a new block chain would give you something that's not really a bitcoin, because it's essentially a new, less secure currency. agreed. not the point though. |
|
|
|
Believe me, if people could magically create bitcoins by downloading or hacking together an alternate client,
they can, if others agree to that, as I've mentioned. also known as forking the blockchain (or creating a new one). still, out of thin air. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
