Bitcoin Forum
June 29, 2024, 03:40:50 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 [1001] 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 ... 1473 »
20001  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Another major blow for illegal bitcoin shit - CEO of BackPage arrested! on: October 07, 2016, 05:31:16 PM
if he is a kiddy fiddler then he deserves to be in prison. no matter what currency he uses.

bitcoin is not some magical currency that relieves people of having to be moral, legal, ethical people.. if you do something that harms another person you deserve to be locked up
20002  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Sidechain protocol creating an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" for scaling on: October 07, 2016, 03:30:38 PM
That's not how I visioned it.

Less like a bank routing/sort code, more like IP addresses. There is a huge addressable space, however I imagine the market would form consensus around a far far small number of blockchains. IPv6 has an addressable space higher than there are atoms on planet earth, its just better to have an abundance of addressable space than end up with another IPv4. A large addressable space enables a free market where anybody can create a blockchain, but does not make higher numbers of blockchains more viable. There isn't a finite capacity, which would lead to centralisation.
my reply about the limited amount of 'wings' was due purely to your own example of aa9. i understand your still 'tweaking your concept' so obviously your examples are not carved in stone. i just purely replied on the current vision/example you had at the time of writing.
as for using ip addresses or other namespaces, how you identify one chain from another still keeps the analogy of bank branches (branches of tree) relevant. i didnt mean it to be specifically a banking sortcod/routing number, much like i presume your identification to be set in stone as 3 hex digits. but used just as examples.

Perhaps the direct children of Angel would be regional, with a main blockchain for Europe, Asia, and then sub blockchains. Each of which has children with higher volumes but more specific use cases. The higher up the tree you go, hashpower is always the sum of all children... security is a tradeoff at the lower levels, but there is no solution that allows blockchains to scale (on chain) without a security tradeoff. The more you pay, the higher the security.
sounds similar to the IMF's hyper ledger concept.
regional chains (brics, amero) then sub chains below that for dollar, pound, euro, ruble, yuan

With regards to the incentive to no longer mine the main Bitcoin blockchain, you could have a fee at each level that passes up say 20% of fees right the way to the Angel. This money pools together, and for every merge mined block, the miner gets all that Bitcoin in reward, so merge mining the main chain is rewarded.
i understand this. but on the link you envisioned people mining the childchains(wings).
Quote
In Buzz, each shard is called a wing and has its own blockchain. There is no cap on the number of wings, anybody can create one. Instead of making design decisions, the free market decides whether a wing will succeed or not. If there’s a wing with high transaction volume and high transaction fees, it will attract a higher number of miners and a higher level of security.

and just having rules to moving %of funding up to the parent and then across(coinswapped) to bitcoin still wont stop the dilution of miners. but instead increases the profitability of miners that remain. thus not exactly a full solution as 1mill miners getting paid XX vs 500k miners getting paid XX+20% has nothing to do with improving security, just profitability.

thus voiding hash power/difficulty away from bitcoin and then diluting that hashpower/difficulty by splitting it up into different and separate branches. because bitcoin becomes the unused leaf at the edge of the angel tree.

With a hard fork to Bitcoin, the entire system could be merge mined together, which would actually increase security of Bitcoin. In a PoW tree structure, there is no loss of overall network security, there is just more choice where a user can decide to have less security at a lower cost. You can just distribute and scale the PoW more effectively.

this idea seems a way to just push everyone onto a new ALTCOIN called angel and then technically onto many altcoins called angel:000-fff and slowly make bitcoin die when less people are playing with bitcoin due to their coins being locked.

It's not to push at all. If it offers a better system at a lower price, people will take their coins into it. We need to solve the problem of on chain scaling, sidechains are happening however we implement them. In 2140, when there are no more coinbase transactions, it is entirely possible that all coins will have been moved away from the main blockchain to something more versatile and it will be abandoned. That is not a problem, and it is not something to trouble ourselves with now.
your proposing to move coins over to angel.. even you say bitcoin can then be abandoned. and your concept probably wants to be running far before 2140.
but the reality is that its not moving coins across. its about locking bitcoins on the bitcoin side and create an alt 1:1 on the angel wing side, with in some form, something storing bitcoins privkeys to the real bitcoins on bitcoins chain... to allow for unlocks should users want to return.. thus revealing the weakness.
so while users are playing with the altcoins there is also bitcoins(locked). which is a way of dismantling bitcoins 21m cap. because while there are 21m coins on the bitcoin network now there are extra coins on angel that also suppose to be bitcoins.
this is the same issue if bitcoin was the top of the tree (forking bitcoin to become the angel) and then had sub networks..
this is the same issue if the coins of wing:aa9 are locked to then play around on wing:fff
unless you found a way to completely obliterate a bitcoin on the bitcoin network(not advisable) to then use that proof of obliteration to then create the alt. there will be the weakness of abuse by wherever/whoever has the privkey for the bitcoin locked funds. to unlock them while the user is playing with the altcoin.

the issue i see is that the 'branch managers' then has all the private keys to unlock the bitcoins while the customers are playing with the aa9 chain.
causing replay attacks(double spending via 2 different coins) as there needs to be a privkey somewhere to unlock coins if people wish to return.
(that issue alone of 'who/how the privkeys are managed' needs a solution, before anything else to make the concept viable)
the issue i see is that the rarity/production cap is then evaporated.
the issue i see is that users then have to trust middlemen creating new altcoins.
the issue i see is sending funds to people in different branches becomes that bit more complicated due to not transacting in just 1 chain

The tree structure (where parents are aware of, but not synchronised with children), allows us to do some cool things with security.

The biggest risk is trying to spend on a child blockchain, and then creating a withdraw transaction on a parent so you keep the coins (double spend).

Children synchronise all parents, so if anybody mines a block that is a double spend, the children will see it immediately. They can then broadcast proof of the double spend to all parent nodes, and miners will not build on that block. This allows you to effectively gain additional security from a parent, without additional cost.

Children always follow parents, so if a parent chain reorganises, so do the children. This prevents inconsistencies.
i understand what you meant and ran scenarios in my head when thinking about your concept. my 'issue' was that when users lock their bitcoins to play with the angel wing coins(altcoins) angel has the privkeys of bitcoin addresses to unlock bitcoins while users are still playing with angelwing coins.
it was not about double spending angelwingcoin aa9 with angelwingcoin fff. it was about the bitcoin<->angel lock/swap. where the bitcoin privkeys needed to be stored somewhere. it was not about the internal code of angel. but the bitcoin side. where privkeys are needed

this essentially is a more dangerous idea than LN. because:
LN doesnt impact bitcoins security of hashpower and difficulty as much, if anything.
LN doesnt impact the rarity/deflationary production cap

as i said. all i can see is how the OP wants to 'manage' the next International monetary Fund(angel) and rule the roost, by inventing new bank branches beneath it and causing bitcoin to get down graded into just a small communities insecure credit union. because bitcoin would no longer be at the centre:
Quote
To move Bitcoin between them would involve a slow transfer back to the mainchain, and then out again to a different sidechain.
Could we instead create a protocol for addressable blockchains, all using a shared proof of work, which effectively acts as an Internet of Blockchains?

we should however be thinking about protecting and expanding bitcoin to remain 'unmanaged' by middlemen to become the new IMF, where bitcoin remains the gateway in and out of all altcoins

I don't know how you think the system is being managed by middmen? The gateway is completely decentralised and has no middle men. It is just an unmanaged protocol that nobody has any control over. There are no private keys, no IMF.
there are privkeys. on the bitcoin side..

Sidechains are still free to have a direct relationship with the main blockchain, and ignore the system, its just that the system facilitates a huge ecosystem and network and all participants benefit, so they'd be silly not to.

It is not a more "dangerous" idea than lightning network, you're comparing apples with oranges. It is an entirely different system, lightning networks are better for day to day payments. This enables something more like Ethereum, a Turing complete machine (or every and any type of blockchain).
bitcoin has private keys. transactions need to be signed by whoever owns the private key.. it is not about the inner workings of angel. its about the side of bitcoin where private keys are needed to lock and unlock funds. obviously they have to be stored and managed... just like LN.
however LN doesnt magic up new coins. the 'balance' stays the same.

however creating wings where bitcoins on the bitcoin network are locked to then create altcoin out of nothing on the wing. while the bitcoins remain in some address that someone has access to. (because ofcourse people may want to get back to bitcoin) thus requires a private key to move funds out of the lock.. leaves a weakness in regards to abuse of unlocking funds while users play with the alt

that last point is the most crucial of all because it leaves the weakness of obliterating the 21m cap if someone was to double spend the bitcoin and also play around with the equal angelwingaa9 coin to spend that coin too..

a safer option is to have it as a separate network and let people 'buy' the angel alt, however i see you would not like that as you want to peg these new alts at the same price as bitcoin 1:1, which 'buying' wont achieve because it wont get you the 1:1 value you want.

i think your concept is not as elegant as you see it, and has more weaknesses than benefits.

i do see some positives, dont get me wrong. such as american users only needing to hold transaction data in their node for american users instead of the whole worlds data.

but you need to really work on the weaknesses,
premiss or killing off bitcoin to make angel the new reserve currency far sooner then the 2140 example you gave
coin creation and ability to unlock bitcoins while the altcoins exist.
the dilution of miners away from bitcoin to protect their regional wing. thus making bitcoin less secure.

as i said your concept has more merit running as its own separate alt which (i think your hoping) will be the new international reserve that overtakes/replaces bitcoin. but trying to peg it to bitcoin. has flaws
20003  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Sidechain protocol creating an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" for scaling on: October 07, 2016, 01:37:50 PM
I wouldn't waste your time with Franky, pondjohn, he's only interested in making false assertions about Bitcoin development that correspond to his paymaster's wishes to disrupt/control/manipulate Bitcoin management. Franky was calling the Lightning Network a "side-chain alt-coin" a few months ago, for example.

lol you were.
i was calling lightning network an implementation of multisigs.
20004  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you believe banks will work with Bitcoin, you're delusional on: October 07, 2016, 01:03:00 PM
the way i see things going.
banks will (like the zimbabwe dollar) hyper inflate the mysql database of current fiat in commercial banks. thus turning the several trillion in debt into being the value of a loaf of bread.

at the same time they will implement the IMF reserve(hyperledger) with a BRICS sidechain and an AMERO sidechain and then having sub sidechains below that for each country that way:
every US dollar gets swapped for a USCoin under the umbrella of amero.
every mexican peso gets swapped for a Mexicoin under the umbrella of amero
and so on..

every Chinese yuan gets swapped for a Chinacoin under the umbrella of BRICS
every Russian ruble gets swapped for a RUScoin under the umbrella of BRICS
and so on..

making it far easier to make old fiat hyper inflate to make $XXtrillion debt valued at a price of bread to pay off government debt easily, because old fiat becomes useless to citizens.

this results in commercial banks losing out because their "bonds" which promise $XXtrillion in the future wont be a future income valuation of say 7trill loaves of bread. but just few loaves of bread.

then the 'government' banks.. bank of england, bank of india, deutsche bank will have all the citizens accounts on the new hyper ledger, all with no government debt to repay

bitcoin is not a threat, infact banks on the hyper ledger can profit from the trades. in and out of the coins. however if you think that a no control open currency will destroy the IMF government currencies(legal tenders). think again. they already have a plan and laws to keep their 'government' currencies(legal tenders) in circulation.
minimum wage measured in legal tender, taxes measured in legal tender, court fines measured in legal tender. etc etc
20005  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Advantages of Bitcoin over traditional payment systems on: October 07, 2016, 11:29:40 AM
lets address the elephants in the room
1 ) It is not controlled by anyone. Its a decentralised peer-to-peer network.

2 ) Based on open source software.

3 ) This means it can not be manipulated, Bitcoin supply is fixed modelling it after gold.

4 ) Nobody can stop or prevent transactions.

5 ) It has low fees compared to other online payment methods like paypal, credit cards etc.

6 ) It is truly global.

7 ) It is programmable money that allows for smart contracts.

8 ) Anybody including kids from their basement, can create financial applications without permission. This is because its open source technology and the network is not controlled by anybody. Nobody needs to ask permission to use it and nobody can restrict access. If you have access to the internet you can access it.

1 ) although the core fanboy leaders are using a softfork to slide in a change without the network nodes needing to upgrade/vote/consent.. the fanboys have faith that their leaders are doing it with honour. but they forget that even having the ability to slide in changes without consensus, can be used for bad too.
thus bitcoin is not indestructible as it relies on the TRUST that a group of devs are going to be honourable.
.. now imagine that it was used for bad..
2 ) doesnt mean malicious/or unintentional bugs cannot be slid in.
3 ) softforks can and do manipulate
4 ) pools stop and restrict transactions every day: no fee, not meeting the rules, being a double spend. miners can CHOOSE any tx they like to be added or avoided.
5 ) low fee's of $0.06 may seem a low minimum in the western world, but is an hours labour in developing countries
6 ) not if the fee-war has anything to do with it. it is already causing a barrier for entry in many countries.
7 ) and we have to 'trust' those programming it. again emphasising the softfork weakness
8 ) proves my point of points 1,2,3,7

what i do find funny is how people who already know about bitcoin are trying hard to brush the weaknesses under the carpet to oversell bitcoin to other people who already know about bitcoin (if you are on this forum you already know bitcoin, so no need to over promise bitcoins abilities to eachother)
and if these over promises are going to be used to explain bitcoin to those that dont know (mainstream world) they will just become distrustful when they see it had been over sold to them.
EG go to india and tell them its "low fee". and then give them just enough bitcoin for an hours labour and see it evaporate in the fees alone.
20006  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you believe banks will work with Bitcoin, you're delusional on: October 07, 2016, 10:54:20 AM
banks are already involved.

but although elwars OP mentioned leveraging (fractional reserve) upto 10 times, as being the issue. its not.. elwar forgets one fundamental flaw

for every trade there is a buyer and a seller
say you buy bitcoin using fiat.. that fiat is not burnt and taken out of circulation.
instead its handed to the person that had bitcoin and wants fiat.

thus the amount of fiat does not decrease. the only thing that changes is who the account holder is of said fiat.

EG
Bank has $1bill total(dumb example), spread over accounts for persons A,B,C,D,E (all having $200m each) and accounts for persons F,G,H,I,J have $0
A-E want to buy bitcoin. F-J want to sell bitcoin.. funds move between account holders.. but the bank still ends up with/has $1bill total and nothing has changed for the bank.

yes a bank branch in Mississippi may end up with less total than bank branch in NYC. but from the HQ point of view its still $1bill.
meaning that HQ can still then 'create' $10bill in 'credit'(mortgages), which yes the HQ can refuse to let the Mississippi process mortgages due to internal metrics, and allow NYC bank to increase mortgages but from the point of view from the top. its still has the same total of mortgage creations.

i say this because banks find it hard to get beyond the $1bill(dumb example) cap of real(zero-debt) balance. because fiat is just a cauldron being stirred of the same money going in circles.
but by offering exchange services where they take a 1% cut. can make that $1bill cap grow, which in turn makes their fractional reserve allowance grow.

the issue is not the fear of bitcoin destroying fiat.
the issue is the local bank branches having laws to only play with fiat.
this is why people cannot play the stock market from a bank branch teller desk or an ATM. but...

the HQ has subsidiaries who can play with exchanges to make their small % often. and customers can apply to these subsidiaries to 'invest'/exchange.

and now my point.
bank customers will not be able to walk upto a conventional ATM or enter a conventional bank branch and swap fiat for bitcoin due to many laws concerning legal tender. (not the worry of Fractional Reserve)
but those banks subsidiaries will have 'services' to allow swaps, just like bank customers CAN'T trade shares on an ATM or bank branch but can contact the subsidiary to trade shares via the brokerage subsidiary.

if you dont believe me that banks are already involved. check out hyper ledger.
R3, (banking group linked to classic) DigitalAssetHoldings(banking group linked to blockstream/core) creating their new international fund network with all the side chains, etc.
proof:
hyperledger ties R3 and DAH - http://www.coindesk.com/hyperledger-technical-steering-committee/
DAH for instance building the blockchain for bank of england, bank of india and deutsche bank.(google RTGS blockchain digital asset holdings)

the only issue is that bitcoin will not be the international monetary fund (reserve currency) where all 'hyper ledgers' circle around bitcoin. instead bitcoin will just be a small side 'asset' that banks subsidiaries(hyperledger) would allow swaps with to take a middleman % cut
20007  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Does Bitcoin Need? on: October 07, 2016, 12:48:21 AM
the issue is not about node count. its about decentralization. which the only solution is stopping one codebase dominating.
which in a utopian dream of living under a rainbow, would be preventing any single codebase from dominating the rules.

at the moment the only mechanism is by having lots of nodes to stop competing nodes dominating. but by the lack of understanding by most, who only trust one codebase they are actually causing domination.

so bitcoins decentralization is not technically decentralized.

the other issue is the 6th degree of separation theory.
which is important because if it takes 2 seconds to send a block of data(slow connection), where each second is critical to the mining race of which block gets accepted as the new blockheight. then we shouldn't delay all nodes from getting the data asap.
EG
say there are only 3100 nodes
if each node had 5 connections. then within 5 hops of relaying data, all 3100 nodes would get it(atleast 10seconds relaytime)
if each node had 8 connections. then within 4 hops of relaying data, all 3100 nodes would get it(atleast 8seconds relaytime)
if each node had 15 connections. then within 3 hops of relaying data, all 3100 nodes would get it(atleast 6seconds relaytime)
if each node had 56 connections. then within 2 hops of relaying data, all 3100 nodes would get it(atleast 4seconds relaytime)

but if there were 16,000 nodes
each node would need 127 connections to get the data relayed to all nodes in 2 hops(atleast 4seconds relaytime)
each node with 6 connections to get the data relayed to all nodes in 6 hops(atleast 12seconds relaytime)

so again amount of nodes does not make the network more secure.

its not an amount, its diversity that we should be concentrating on.
20008  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Sidechain protocol creating an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" for scaling on: October 07, 2016, 12:08:53 AM
however. there is nothing stopping you from programming it as its own stand alone coin, which allows users to come together using multisigs/contracts to create branches and run their own sub-chains/wings.

and then let the market decide if its better.
instead of trying to attach it directly to bitcoin to dilute bitcoins security and utility, in one swoop of making your altcoin the new international reserve.
20009  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Sidechain protocol creating an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" for scaling on: October 06, 2016, 11:44:48 PM
not really.

a side chain still is a chain. still has to store data. but i see the concept you are thinking of.
if you want to be a full node. yes you can shut down your bitcoin node and then run an angel branch/wing:aa9 node that only amounts to storing/validating 0.0244% of transactions due to there being 4096(im presuming by the aa9 hex example) branches/wings(altcoin) of angel.

what you are proposing is that Angel is becomes the 'reserve currency' like the IMF bank and each 'child' blockchain/wing is a bank branch, each with its own sortcode/routing number(aa9).

the end result is when people lock bitcoins, to play with altcoin aa9. they no longer need to run a bitcoin node and miners no longer need to mine bitcoin because they are then "spending" and protecting their value on a IMF(angel) bank branch/wing: aa9. and if that branch/wing chain is a public chain it will only be protected by the 'users' in that branch/wing. which is far LESS secure than everyone concentrating the entire hashpower on just one chain.

thus voiding hash power/difficulty away from bitcoin and then diluting that hashpower/difficulty by splitting it up into different and separate branches. because bitcoin becomes the unused leaf at the edge of the angel tree.

this idea seems a way to just push everyone onto a new ALTCOIN called angel and then technically onto many altcoins called angel:000-fff and slowly make bitcoin die when less people are playing with bitcoin due to their coins being locked.

the issue i see is that the 'branch managers' then has all the private keys to unlock the bitcoins while the customers are playing with the aa9 chain.
causing replay attacks(double spending via 2 different coins) as there needs to be a privkey somewhere to unlock coins if people wish to return.
(that issue alone of 'who/how the privkeys are managed' needs a solution, before anything else to make the concept viable)
the issue i see is that the rarity/production cap is then evaporated.
the issue i see is that users then have to trust middlemen creating new altcoins.
the issue i see is sending funds to people in different branches becomes that bit more complicated due to not transacting in just 1 chain

this essentially is a more dangerous idea than LN. because:
LN doesnt impact bitcoins security of hashpower and difficulty as much, if anything.
LN doesnt impact the rarity/deflationary production cap

as i said. all i can see is how the OP wants to 'manage' the next International monetary Fund(angel) and rule the roost, by inventing new bank branches beneath it and causing bitcoin to get down graded into just a small communities insecure credit union. because bitcoin would no longer be at the centre:

Quote
To move Bitcoin between them would involve a slow transfer back to the mainchain, and then out again to a different sidechain.
Could we instead create a protocol for addressable blockchains, all using a shared proof of work, which effectively acts as an Internet of Blockchains?

we should however be thinking about protecting and expanding bitcoin to remain 'unmanaged' by middlemen to become the new IMF, where bitcoin remains the gateway in and out of all altcoins
20010  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Austin Hill and Blockstream can just fuck right off. on: October 06, 2016, 02:27:02 PM
blah blah blah dev speaks to government blah

its public knowledge about the gavin-cia invitation of 2011
he actually publicly told people he was attending, months before attending.
there was even videos of him at that conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoSWnxieScw
ill leave yayaya to actually research more.

but here is a mind opening thought for yayaya
yayaya should replace the word "gavin" with the word "adam back" and the same applies. because, guess what... adam back has had talks with government departments too.
using "business partners" adam back is actually paid by corporations and government departments.
(replace R3 with PwC and you start to see it)

i know yayaya wont research that hard so here is some easy finds
google: "Digital Asset Holdings RTGS" - DAH work with bank of england, bank of india, deutsche bank to make their banking systems into blockchain
google: "hyperledger: Digital Asset Holdings blockstream" - formed at the same time as blockstream inventing the "roadmap"
meaning "Digital Asset Holdings" which is the blockstream banking partner that resembles classics R3 banking partner.
also worth noting that r3 are part of hyperledger.... funny that!
http://www.coindesk.com/hyperledger-technical-steering-committee/ - IBM, jpmorgan, multiple banks(DAH), multiple banks(r3)
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/ - blockstream is part of hyperledger

the hypocrisy of trying to hide the corporate agenda of one group by talking about another group does not work.
wake up and realise who your being a sheep to.

this is why there should be NO dev team dominance. so that no dev team can be corrupted enough to change bitcoin negatively

have a nice day
20011  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hardfork = Mitosis on: October 06, 2016, 01:23:32 PM
hard fork(eth: --oppose-dao-fork) = intentional split = mitosis
consensus change = majority upgrade = gene therapy

-snip-
What's up with so many analogies recently regarding hard forks?

because a hard fork is not just one thing. its people like you who unconvincingly try to brush stuff under the rug and treat it all as a disaster.
controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.

people need to know the difference so they can see passed your doomsdays of trying to treat an umbrella term as total disaster, by highlighting that people like you are picking the worse case scenario within that term, and avoiding discussing the more logical and safe scenarios which is what the community want.

also unlike yourself who avoid learning, some people want to learn. they just sometimes dont understand some analogies. thus using different analogies appeal to different people in different ways to get more people to understand.
20012  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Brave' browser starts paying bitcoins on: October 06, 2016, 04:54:46 AM
I don't find it interesting and I am afraid that this project will fail hard,who will pay only to be able to browse without ads when he can use a better browser + Adblock for free?Only a few people will do it just to show their support the rest will install it and try to earn a few satoshi using it.

maybe you should check out the project first and then give your opinion against it.

this browser is not for paying to visit sites or even getting paid to visit sites. it is one of the smallest features it is offering.

the main focus is on blocking all the ads and unwanted scripts that may be running in the background automatically.

brave's main focus is to block sites while still paying webmasters.. BUT
USERS wont focus on paying to block ads.. theres other tools that do that for free.
USERS will focus on getting paid by clicking as many adverts or viewing as many adverts available.

this is why brave needs to really work on making it sustainable otherwise it will get abused by USERS
20013  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bubble of the central banks will burst soon on: October 06, 2016, 02:12:55 AM
Bitcoin is a hedge against the current financial system, similar to how speculators invest in gold when things go bad.

yes it is a hedge. but has more usefulness then gold because you can actually buy things with bitcoin and trade it without any sweat or heavy postal costs.

but any asset is not a fixed opposition to inflation. even gold can increase in price due to inflation but that price buys less bread than before.
as you say its speculative, meaning variable, not fixed/guaranteed
20014  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bubble of the central banks will burst soon on: October 06, 2016, 01:45:09 AM
the price of goods will increase too for equaling the inflation and so it's just like nothing happened.

exactly. there is no point in praying for bitcoin going to $10,000 a coin. if that coin results in only buying 2 loaves of bread.
take the Zimbabwe dollar as an example.
20015  Other / Meta / Re: Is it just me or has the quality of this forum dropped immensely on: October 05, 2016, 11:41:45 PM
Sig campaigns are such bs. Is there a reason that they haven't been banned outright?

the forum owner believes in open markets and freedoms (though has had some ironic examples of limiting freedom of speech on other platforms)
20016  Other / Meta / Re: Is it just me or has the quality of this forum dropped immensely on: October 05, 2016, 11:18:46 PM
yep. its due to greed

when the sig campaign owners reduce their reward per post. the users signed up will spam post even more, just to try staying at a certain level of income. they will start making multiple accounts as another way to try increasing their income.

the problem is that asking the sig campaign owners to not decrease the reward also incentivize spammers to spam more.
the only solution is to completely stop sig campaigns.

sideline notes about English:
bitcoin is not owned by any country and English is only used as a first language by ~420mill of ~7bill.
English is adaptive,
the tom8o tom@o. color vs colour, trousers vs pants, knickers vs panties debates prove this
aswell as the differences between a british scouser talking to british cockney.
aswell as the differences between an american hill billy and someone from the bronx

in short we should not limit bitcoin to only be used and talked about by oxford scholars, because we have already begun to failed the world by pricing bitcoins usefulness out of third world countries by having the transaction fee higher then several countries hourly wage.

by the way i am a brit, yet see the bigger picture
20017  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hardfork = Mitosis on: October 05, 2016, 11:07:39 PM
hard fork(eth: --oppose-dao-fork) = intentional split = mitosis
consensus change = majority upgrade = gene therapy

gene therapy:
if the majority of cells(nodes) accept the new gene(rule), then all cells change to fix a issue to allow the body(network) to healthily grow, without the previous unhealthy limitation.

if the majority of cells(nodes) reject the new gene(rule), then all cells dont change and the body(network) remains having the unhealthy limitation.
20018  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bubble of the central banks will burst soon on: October 05, 2016, 10:30:55 PM
central bank bubble bursting will send fiat into a spiral.

but you have to think of it from the price of bread, food and clothing prospective.

even if bitcoin($~600) can now buy you ~400 loaves of bread ($1.50 each)
bitcoin fluctuates so you cannot always buy the same amount of bread.
last year while the average loaf of bread was ~$1.50 bitcoin would only buy you 166 loaves (bitcoin $250)
a couple years ago bitcoin had a pricepoint of getting 600 loaves of bread ($1000 spike of 2013)

when the bubble bursts, inflation can take bread up to $2.50 a loaf, and hyper inflation can take a loaf of bread to $200 a loaf and upwards of that.

so yes bitcoins £/$/euro price can increase to $800 but the amount of loaves of bread you might get, may be far less than 400 loaves of bread.
the bubble may cause bitcoins price to go upto $1000 but the amount of bread you can buy again might get you less than 400 loaves of bread. and definitely not the same as 2013

bitcoins price is NOT pegged /fixed to the dollar inflation.. yes inflation can inpact bitcoins price but what you can buy with it is more important then the value itself
20019  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Brave' browser starts paying bitcoins on: October 05, 2016, 03:12:47 PM
everybody is talking about the earning/not earning money with this new browser
I wonder why the security concern has never been raised?Will your sensitive data be safe with this browser?How well and fast will it be updated and isues fixed?
Is the brave team capable to compete with Coogle Chrome or FF?
more questions than answers at the moment

chrome based by the looks of it and there is also a github that people can check.
though we can presume the shell of the browser (window, buttons and textbox) wont grab data, the chrome component itself still could grab data, after all it is google owned
20020  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Brave' browser starts paying bitcoins on: October 05, 2016, 02:42:49 PM
The appropriate portion of tips/ad revenue will be made available for webmasters to claim (or ignore).
ok i see your point. my head was in another zone concentrating on other issues not related to this topic, to not see the blindingly obvious of there being no pre-requisite need for websites to 'signup'
i originally was running scenarios based on things like
Quote
19. Are there any other ads that Brave would not block?
Our plan for the future includes allowing publishers to signal the browser in real-time when they have direct-sold ads that are worth more than what Brave can provide.
imagining they were going to work with a select list of websites that will be brave compatible to earn users/website funds. as oppose to braves funding model and clean ads model being open to all sites

So more appropriate question is whether they have enough advertisers for their own ads, getting such could be tough without gaining critical mass of users first. So I'd say they need to bring all the pieces at the (almost) same time, they can't afford to wait and lose the momentum.
yes getting advertisers to agree on any level of income should come first. but a hard hill to climb to make the concept appealing.
but still expect it to change later if the 'service' brave offers becomes too saturated with fund leachers making the quality of views drop while the quantity rises. causing the 'price rate' per view/click to drop

so i hope Brave have done a few formulae and are going to set some upper limit to how much a user can leach, to avoid the downward spiral
Pages: « 1 ... 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 [1001] 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 ... 1473 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!