@ Mucus: Sry, but your chart is rigged. Change the time interval and vote again.  No, I think it's just right. We can argue if "First Sell off" was in 2011 or 2012 but they are clearly visible either way. But resetting the poll is an interesting idea, I will do that once we got some significant market movement in a month or so. |
|
|
|
 Did I nail it? Is there a prize? So Enthusiasm is at the same height as Despair? How does that work out? Is Bitcoin bipolar? I guess you're operating under the assumption that the graph will fit every bubble market ever at a 1:1 scale? That is, if we can set aside the fact that our bubble started around $13, and that would mean "despair" would need to be a negative number to hold these proportions. I can't come up with a scenario where that would make sense, but I'd like to hear yours. Tell me what is going to make me pay someone, what would apear to be $20 or $30 a piece, to take my bitcoins, and I'll consider your point fair. I have two answers for you: First, consider the average Bitcoin be representative of a certain part of a defaulted bank loan, that would push it into the negative territory. That doesn't mean people actually pay money to get rid of their coins on the open market but rather they do so to get rid of their debt. I think the number of people who leveraged their way into their Bitcoin holdings is alarmingly high, and even some of the prominent Bulls in this forum agree with me on that. (Cypherdoc for example, correct me if I'm wrong  ) Second, I think Despair just is supposed to be below the mean, which in turn should match the non-bubble market loosely. Where ever that is in the case of Bitcoin we would still have to find out. If you extrapolate the stable episodes it should be around 10-20 Dollar, more or less depending on the news. |
|
|
|
Did I nail it? Is there a prize? So Enthusiasm is at the same height as Despair? How does that work out? Is Bitcoin bipolar? |
|
|
|
|
The illustration isn't supposed to be logarithmic so this debate is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting I expected the -- I refuse to vote -- option to be far more popular.
|
|
|
|
Software radios with fractal antennas can cover a wide band of frequencies. Just use frequencies not currently in use. By swarming, spread spectrum, and constantly changing frequencies they can avoid detection. Also, someone would have to be motivated to locate them. It they avoid competing with existing use, no one would have reason to try to track down a transmitter's location. Lower frequencies can travel much longer distances, but have less bandwidth.
Sounds like an opportunity for designed stratification of physical deployment redundancy.... although if detection of these fractal antennas is difficult, maybe it may not be so necessary. Plasma antennas let you archive essentially the same thing. But good luck getting a permit for legal use in that fashion. |
|
|
|
1. Free internet. (As in zero-cost) There are tens of thousands of people using their mesh networks in Europe and elsewhere today as their only way to get online; and all they paid for was the hardward costs... No ongoing fees of any kind.
2. Free internet. (As in liberty) Don't like how you ISP is stopping you from downloading torrents or porn or something else they feel is wrong? Sorry, obomba told them to do it. So why should you have to go through the trouble of encrypting things like torrents when you could just do away with ISPs totally?
Unless I'm missing/misunderstanding something, the local mesh has to connect to the internet at some point, through someone's ISP, which would render these 2 points void. The larger the mesh becomes the less it has to rely on the existing architecture. Second there is not just one point where the mesh could connect to the rest of the Internet. Any node can function as a gateway if necessary. |
|
|
|
or no life.
Could be better, but complaining is besides the point. I'd argue that the people who attack me in that manner are even more pathetic. |
|
|
|
|
Oh look it's this thread again.
|
|
|
|
Whilst I find the idea of Meshnets fascinating and I wholeheartedly agree that they are well suited to some niche applications but for everyone else what will it offer?
I mean what is the importance of the connectivity layer? If we ignore the 'cool factor' what benefit would I get from connecting through a meshnet than say using my existing commercial provider?
For subversive applications I can use cryptography, VPNs / Tor / I2P etc. I can also completely emulate the meshnet by creating a P2P overlay over my untrusted connection provided by EvilISPCorp.
For a censorship-free internet I think the focus on DIY-internets is a little misplaced. We should look more into developing better tools that work over our existing infrastructure, that keep us anonymous and free through the mathematics of cryptography, not by putting routers on our rooftops.
Currently it only makes sense for the Geeks as existing mesh networks are often organized as a non-profit association which requires some effort and an admittance fee to pay for outside connectivity and stuff. Although it doesn't necessarily has to be that way. If the trend holds sooner or later there would be commercial kits anybody could use with some state of the art protocol for network discovery. Pretty much the way satellite vs. cable television works now. Main motivation would be reliability, independence and cost. However I don't think that existing technologies would be the right candidate for mesh networks, although the majority uses it now. It's prone to several difficulties because wifi wasn't made to be used with high gain antennas in a grid architecture. I would prefer free space optical communications for reliability and performance. I think if somebody were to commercialize it for the consumer sector this could go a long way. These things could be available for about $200 end market price and would fly off the shelves if there were a protocol which is both easy to use and efficient enough. |
|
|
|
What if Google endorses bitcoin, say, by implementing it in Google wallet? No but I've heard from reliant sources Amazon is working on implementing Solidcoin 3. Sounds highly unlikely given the past of SolidCoin and their license violations. They got around that by implementing the One Click Solid TM mechanism. |
|
|
|
What if Google endorses bitcoin, say, by implementing it in Google wallet? No but I've heard from reliant sources Amazon is working on implementing Solidcoin 3. |
|
|
|
I can't post it nearly enough.  That is because you have nothing insightful to offer and choose to instead copy and paste an overposted image without providing reasoning for your predictions. I have nothing insightful to offer in overly monotonous shitposting threads without providing reasoning for my participation. At least I'm not alone. If you are so bored with these threads, why do you keep coming back? I enjoy the attention I guess. |
|
|
|
Everybody sees what he want to.   |
|
|
|
I can't post it nearly enough. That is because you have nothing insightful to offer and choose to instead copy and paste an overposted image without providing reasoning for your predictions. I have nothing insightful to offer in overly monotonous shitposting threads without providing reasoning for my participation. At least I'm not alone. |
|
|
|
The key is to offload all of the redundant data, have distributed hosting indexed by distributed DNS. Then allow servers to provide the dynamic data that will reference the static data. If I have to have my server 'always on' to publish data on the mesh network then that is a single point of failure and I risk being identified because all traffic ultimately routes to my server.
Ok, but why re-invent the wheel? A node operator could run a transparent proxy server if he wishes to offload some traffic. |
|
|
|
It seems Bitcoin has just got much more popular in Poland. Anti-fragile, bitches!
If the same happens to the real money laying around at Gox we'll see how "anti-fragile" Butts really are. for shame trolling lk that. I've learn3d to expect better from your other posts. gox is not bitcoin and everyone knows that if you have x usd and y btc in gox all it means is 2 numbers in some gox db. btc encourages or at least does not penalize holding value personally. and when you do so noone can take it without your permission. not counting stealing your personal private key of course. but that is very different then being able to shift millions of balances into your sphere so you can then borrow against it. I'm sorry that's my instinctive reaction to up uP UP kind of posts coming from the profiteers who did nothing besides proliferating themselves. The point here is: What's keeping Bitcoins seemingly valuable currently is not their utility but the willingness of people to exchange Dollars for them. Pretty much everybody who wants to do that exhausted their ability to do so, and once the money vanishes for some reason nobody will hop in to compensate. OTC deals will only go as far and the people who do them would be quite reluctant to pay higher prices without the 'price fixing' taking place at gox. I'm not saying that can't change in the future, but how it stands that's how it is now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
