25c fees would be a disaster really. Bitcoin will go on and people will still invest and use it for large purchases when it's convenient but it will seriously lose a lot of competitive edge.

That's some wild speculation. Even so, transaction fees will have to be compared to something. Whether that's gold, rice, or litecoin, bitcoin will always have a value. And a transaction fee will also have a corresponding value. The USD part isn't important here at all.


The fee can be anything miners want it to be, but the question is what will it be and when. And who is going to take steps to ensure that it doesn't price out 2 billion or more people.

I really like the idea of survival and building your own protection but I don't really like the whole zombie thing. If the game is really good I'll probably still check it out, but I'd really prefer a different premise.

Rust also sounds really good in theory, but again with the zombie thing :S

I do think it's an issue and to be honest I'm not particularly impressed with Ghash's response, or lack there of.

Especially when you compare it to the quick and effective response of BTC Guild when they were in the 40% bracket.

Some people have speculated that Ghash has mining power that totals above 50% already but their mining it off pool in order to avoid attention. I'm not saying that's true, but if they did end up with over 50% of the hashing power that would seem like it would be the most rational thing to do economically speaking(if and only if the public had no knowledge of it happening).

>50% attacks are real and should be taken seriously by the community. Even the threat of one is enough to seriously harm bitcoin in the eyes of the public. I don't even want to imagine what sort spin these modern media companies would put on it.

In terms of USD value are transaction fees going to get more expensive over time? At ~13 cents USD they're pretty high for transactions under $10. Now this doesn't affect me personally. But we see a lot of talk about bitcoin helping out the unbanked, and bringing bitcoin to Africa and such, and higher transaction fees are really going to limit bitcoin's potential in certain markets.

Do you think at some point we'll see miners voluntarily reduce transaction fees? Or perhaps the opposite, more and more miners not including low fee transactions thus driving the price up.

As the market is now, are we heading towards increases? Or do you think the transaction fee issue is one that will be resolved on it's own? I think some people might underestimate how much of a limiting factor it could be.

That's an interesting interpretation of the law. The only reason I might doubt that interpretation is the fact that they are attempting to pass the bill outlined in that thread. If your interpretation was correct there would be little reason to pass that specific bill. I'm not a lawyer though so I'm just speculating here.

That's actually pretty interesting and seems like a clever idea. I'm not really a big TOR user but I do know that it's notoriously slow. And rewarding people who contribute to the network with increased speed via those priority passes seems like a pretty good idea.

Is this actually going to be implemented on the network, or is this more of just a theoretical thing?

You're welcome.

A couple of weeks ago Chrome blocked KryptoKit by mistake, but they realised their error and re enabled it again pretty quickly. It's a pretty good app. It's very easy to check the price of bitcoin with it and it also has all the latest headlines. And I believe it's made by some trusted members of the bitcoin community, so not much to worry about there.

I'm sure there is lots of bitcoin commerce going on in California at the moment, but from reading this thread(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=464149.msg5129518#msg5129518 it appears that California does actually have a odd technicality law in place that makes bitcoin illegal.

Would you(or anyone else for that matter) mind expanding on this point a little? What sort of attacks are we talking about here?

I don't use Noscript at the moment. Are there really many javascript exploits out there in the wild that we should be worried about standard web browsing? Also, I'm assuming these exploits are going to be targeting windows, not Linux.

Does the fact that Chrome sandboxes everything make a difference at all? Or is that just an illusion of protection? What about running Chrome in Sandboxie?

I thought there was an issue of probability involved with the reversing of transactions. Or is it something like when the attacker who has >50% chooses to publish their blockchain that doesn't have the transaction that's supposed to be double spent the network automatically accepts their chain because they've done the most proof of work? Does that sound right at all? So it doesn't matter how many confirmations happen because they will all be wiped out when the network accepts this new chain?

Wow this is really interesting. I am not surprised at all really, but it's kind of amazing how the modern American economy seems to be set up to make people poor.

Maybe part of the problem with some people not believing in bitcoin is because they don't understand that having bitcoin is like having a ticket. Your private key is your ticket to whatever amount of btc you happen to have. And it's not possible for the system to forget that you own the btc because the blockchain is distributed over a massive amount of separate computers all over the world. So in that respect bitcoin very much exists. It exists on every hard drive that has a copy of the blockchain.

I think it looks pretty good in general. Nice simplistic design. Nothing fancy while still looking better than a plain piece of paper.

If you wanted to make it more complicated you could add a border around the bitcoin symbol. Maybe some texture to the background. Perhaps double frame the parts where the QR codes go.

Overall it's good to see people creating things like this. Keep it up and post more designs here if you wish.

Would just waiting for a larger number of confirmations defeat the attempts at double spending?

Like instead of the standard 6, instead wait for 8, 10, 12? Whatever the safe amount would be so that there would be enough blocks solved by different independent sources. Or am I missing something here and that wouldn't be a solution to the problem...

I have to agree with this. This story is really weak. The writing leaves a lot to be desired.

Is there a lot of bitcoin related fiction out there? I haven't seen much.

Do you think people in general would be interested in well written bitcoin fiction?

Will Brazil win the 2014 World Cup?

Is Hillary Clinton going to be the next president of the United States of America?

The only justification for buying a console over a PC for gaming is if you have a lot of money and you think it's worth it to spend $500 just to play a couple of exclusives like Halo or something. Because other than that these consoles are a huge rip off to consumers. People should really speak out against Sony and Microsoft for bringing such inferior products to market. A lot of people don't realise what's going on and they assume that they're getting a quality product.

I have a feeling Germany could take it this time. But Brazil is the big favourite of course.

I think Portugal might do better this time. Not sure how far, but I wouldn't be surprised at Semi-Finals.

Spain is going to win their group stage for sure. I don't see it happening any other way.

Are those gold bars that are full of tungsten actually real gold on the outside part? Or is that part of it fake as well?

Per capita downloads mean nothing really. China and the US are and are going to continue to be the biggest users of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies overall by a long shot. It's great that bitcoin is so popular in some of those countries but that alone doesn't mean particularly much.