I'm all for greater female involvement in the Bitcoin community. And, unlike some other members of this community, I know that women are just as capable of understanding, admiring, and participating in Bitcoin as men are. I'm aware it's just sexism preventing this. Clearly, in some places and communities (e.g. China), this gender bias doesn't exist. That said, I'm against the idea of a female-only subforum. The issue at stake is: where do we draw the line? Should we have an African-American subforum? An LGBT subforum? An ages 70+ subforum? At a certain point, the subforums are segregated based on qualities that aren't relevant to constructive discourse about Bitcoin. Personally, I think the community should instead do more to make it less toxic for women. One user recently PMed me regarding using the trust system as a punitive measure. Although I am ambivalent about overloading the trust system in this manner, if there is enough support for using the trust system this way I would cancel my opposition to it. If so, people who make it unnecessarily difficult to participate in this community as a women can be punished through the trust system. I certainly do not like mob justice, but perhaps the trust system is more similar to decentralized justice, given the ability to choose whom one trusts. |
|
|
|
If you used something outdated like bitcoinx.com/profit, then stop, goto a place like mining.thegenesisblock.com and see where you stand for at least the next 90 days. ignore anything beyond that as there is no way to have the system double upon double upon double every month like their calculator is expecting.
This has been said every month for over the past year. Difficulty will surprise you. |
|
|
|
Classic Report (days): 1. 2013-11-16: 0.43334 USD/mBTC
2. 2013-11-15: 0.41763 USD/mBTC
3. 2013-11-14: 0.40977 USD/mBTC
4. 2013-11-13: 0.37891 USD/mBTC
5. 2013-11-12: 0.35049 USD/mBTC
6. 2013-11-09: 0.33871 USD/mBTC
7. 2013-11-11: 0.33461 USD/mBTC
8. 2013-11-08: 0.31794 USD/mBTC
9. 2013-11-10: 0.29968 USD/mBTC
10. 2013-11-07: 0.28332 USD/mBTC
11. 2013-11-06: 0.25541 USD/mBTC
12. 2013-11-05: 0.23837 USD/mBTC
13. 2013-11-04: 0.22048 USD/mBTC
14. 2013-04-09: 0.21467 USD/mBTC
15. 2013-11-03: 0.20650 USD/mBTC
16. 2013-11-02: 0.20422 USD/mBTC
17. 2013-11-01: 0.20261 USD/mBTC
18. 2013-10-30: 0.20105 USD/mBTC
19. 2013-10-31: 0.20040 USD/mBTC
20. 2013-10-29: 0.20017 USD/mBTC Weeks, non-overlapping: 1. 2013-11-10 through 2013-11-16 W. Avg: 0.36239
2. 2013-11-03 through 2013-11-09 W. Avg: 0.27622
3. 2013-10-27 through 2013-11-02 W. Avg: 0.19888
4. 2013-10-19 through 2013-10-25 W. Avg: 0.18098
5. 2013-04-05 through 2013-04-11 W. Avg: 0.17581
6. 2013-04-24 through 2013-04-30 W. Avg: 0.14227
7. 2013-10-12 through 2013-10-18 W. Avg: 0.13957
8. 2013-05-24 through 2013-05-30 W. Avg: 0.13008
9. 2013-09-12 through 2013-09-18 W. Avg: 0.12655
10. 2013-08-29 through 2013-09-04 W. Avg: 0.12622 Differential from previous day: 1. 2011-02-01 43.14%
2. 2010-07-18 37.09%
3. 2011-06-08 36.92%
4. 2013-04-17 30.52%
5. 2010-10-25 29.87%
6. 2011-06-03 29.33%
7. 2013-04-13 28.80%
8. 2011-05-13 28.40%
9. 2011-04-29 27.50%
10. 2010-07-19 27.50% |
|
|
|
Here's an updater. I haven't updated for a while because I feel it is no longer interesting seeing these consecutive all-time highs, as it's a sea of bold. However, if you want an update, feel free to ask. Don't pay me for it; this takes less than 5 seconds to generate. I'll look into automating it in the future. 1. 2013-11-14: 0.40977 USD/mBTC
2. 2013-11-13: 0.37891 USD/mBTC
.......
20. 2013-10-28: 0.19485 USD/mBTC[/color] This is very good, but could you also do another list of the top 20 by % change from previous day? It will normalize the dataset. Having been in this end of the market for a while, can we get a top 10-20 weeks along side the days? Appreciated.
Both of these are possible. I'll get them generated as soon as today's datapoint is available. |
|
|
|
Done. I am moving through the backlog, so please excuse the current lack of inputs.io (it's on the list). |
|
|
|
|
A lot of talk about the birthday paradox here.
From my understanding, the birthday paradox is theoretical in nature. An attacker can claim, and mathematically prove, to have an arbitrarily high probability of having generated a collision, but cannot show the colliding public keys.
This is due to the outrageous memory requirement. Storing 280 public keys in memory is impossible, as it would require ~39 yottabytes of memory. In comparison, the NSA is predicted to have less than 5 zettabytes (0.005 yottabytes) of storage capacity, despite having what is likely the largest cold storage complex in the world. Even assuming hard disk size doubling every year, it would take 13 years for someone to amass that kind of capacity.
As has been predicted, generating 280 addresses is likely to be feasible in the next decade; however, proving with 100% certainty that a collision has occurred is not.
|
|
|
|
Recently, the satoshi exceeded 0.01 Uzbekistani som in value. [1]Why is this important? 0.01 Uzbekistani som is a Uzbekistani tiyin, which is the least valuable currency denomination used in the world. [2]The satoshi was originally designed to be small enough that even if Bitcoin blew up, people could transact well. At today's prices, the satoshi is finally a reasonable smallest denomination, reaching the levels of one government smallest denomination. Luckily, this is not a problem. More decimal places can easily be added in the future. In fact, there is room for 3 more decimal places yet! [3]The next target is the Burmese pya. We are around halfway there at current rates. References |
|
|
|
40% is an amazing number. Just goes to show how the West really is unjustified in accusing the Chinese of sexism: apparently this ratio is commonplace in tech industries in China. Here's a quote from Jenny Bai, an executive of Girls in Tech China: Mao taught that women in China hold up half the sky, which is something that still holds true amongst today’s generation; Chinese women also have a stronger education background in science and tech than American women. These hard skills, coupled with society’s mentality that women can do whatever they choose, definitely takes down the general idea of a gender discrimination barrier.
|
|
|
|
Here's an updater. I haven't updated for a while because I feel it is no longer interesting seeing these consecutive all-time highs, as it's a sea of bold. However, if you want an update, feel free to ask. Don't pay me for it; this takes less than 5 seconds to generate. I'll look into automating it in the future. 1. 2013-11-14: 0.40977 USD/mBTC
2. 2013-11-13: 0.37891 USD/mBTC
3. 2013-11-12: 0.35049 USD/mBTC
4. 2013-11-09: 0.33871 USD/mBTC
5. 2013-11-11: 0.33461 USD/mBTC
6. 2013-11-08: 0.31794 USD/mBTC
7. 2013-11-10: 0.29968 USD/mBTC
8. 2013-11-07: 0.28332 USD/mBTC
9. 2013-11-06: 0.25541 USD/mBTC
10. 2013-11-05: 0.23837 USD/mBTC
11. 2013-11-04: 0.22048 USD/mBTC
12. 2013-04-09: 0.21467 USD/mBTC
13. 2013-11-03: 0.20650 USD/mBTC
14. 2013-11-02: 0.20422 USD/mBTC
15. 2013-11-01: 0.20261 USD/mBTC
16. 2013-10-30: 0.20105 USD/mBTC
17. 2013-10-31: 0.20040 USD/mBTC
18. 2013-10-29: 0.20017 USD/mBTC
19. 2013-10-23: 0.19625 USD/mBTC
20. 2013-10-28: 0.19485 USD/mBTC |
|
|
|
Whoa, now he's collecting peoples personal IDs as a condition of refunds. This is cute :0
have you read why? EMAILS can be faked, to be more precise, senders email address can be fake so the attacker since he have all our emails and balances can very well send emails in our name with his BTC adress, is that so hard to understand? But passwords can't be faked... The attacker only has the hash of the password hash, so no juice there... |
|
|
|
|
My personal opinion:
Bitcoins are already non-fungible, and that's not a problem.
Certain bitcoins are worth more or less than others. A few common reasons and examples:
Novelty
If Satoshi were to sell the genesis block's coins, he could probably get at least double their "value" for them.
Colour
Coloured bitcoins are obviously worth far more than other bitcoins.
Velocity
Nominally, receiving a hundred 1 mBTC transactions should be equivalent to receiving one 100 mBTC transaction. This isn't the case, however, because the latter can be used much more quickly and with much fewer fees owed.
Taint
This contentious subject is already affecting the value of coins. Companies like Mt. Gox may freeze them, companies like StrongCoin may seize them, etc. Tainted coins are much more likely to be seized or frozen, so their value is already lowered due to the increased risk.
I contend that this is not a problem. Why?
Choice
Every business can choose which coins to accept and which coins to accept at a discount or premium. If a business finds, for example, hate crime appalling, then it should have the right to reject coins likely traceable to the KKK's public address. This freedom of choice does not violate financial freedom; rather, it facilitates it.
Deterrent
Crime and other unsavoury actions would be discouraged greatly if their coins were rejected by various major companies. If a critical mass of companies rejects accepting certain tainted coins, other companies will likely follow in fear that their own coins will be tainted. Criminals would have much less incentive to commit financial crimes.
Precedent
Nothing is truly fungible. That includes gold, USD, water, human lives, etc. Tainted coins are no different in principle from muddied water or impure gold. They simply aren't as useful as regular coins because many businesses won't accept them. Nobody is stopping you from using impure gold or muddied water. But you shouldn't force others to accept those either.
|
|
|
|
How? If you don't mind. I don't want anything on or from my trust list. I would like it blank. 0 ppl.
I blanked it out and then it went to default.
Replace it with "satoshi". That account is disabled and does not and will not trust anyone. |
|
|
|
|
This auction is over. I will contact DiamondCardz (the winning bidder) through PM.
|
|
|
|
Just under 3 hours until this auction ends. Current winning bid is: 5 mBTC.
|
|
|
|
i have 3 and they are worth .000025 each. looking to get .0005 for them. Well possibly have more in future.
> "%.8f" % (3 * 0.000025)
=> '0.00007500'
Why do you expect 0.0005 for them? |
|
|
|
Man, it's getting hard to keep up! I'll add the new ones after the ones already on the backlog. |
|
|
|
1.5mBTC
Bid invalid. Bidding 1 mBTC.
Bid stands. If you do not mind, please also PM or post the BBCode you want in your signature so I don't have to hound you for it on November 15. |
|
|
|
User id 68451 ("dree12").
Thanks!
For the record, I have yet to receive this. It has been well over 24 hours. Resolved  . |
|
|
|
User id 68451 ("dree12").
Thanks!
For the record, I have yet to receive this. It has been well over 24 hours. |
|
|
|
|
So, was this ever settled? How will it go now that TradeFortress has been outed too?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
