this coin will bloom if it will be listed on some other exchanges, community support and the dev's support is very essential to let it live, to make it grow and be a competitive coin.
I'd like to hear more, Crypto Girl. Stop by #woodcoin sometime or send me a PM please. |
|
|
|
As for taxing Bitcoins, I think that it would somewhat impossible to achieve, since you would need to be able to track every user, their transactions, among many other things. If the user uses a different Bitcoin address for each transaction, then it would make it even more difficult for any government to be able to collect taxes from you. Just my opinion.  Taxing bitcoins is not that difficult as you might think There is no need to trace every transaction and it doesn't make sense either. Essentially, only block generating transactions should be taxed (if we assume that Bitcoin has to be taxed at all, of course), i.e. miners rewards. Since miners now are big mining farms in real life, they could be taxed directly, for every new Bitcoin they issue into circulation Yeah duh, bitcoin is made for paying things - and paying things is sometimes called "tax" or "tariff". All semantics aside, a bunch of big dudes walk up to your shop with bats and demand payment in whatever form they wish. You pay. That's how it works. They were doing this in Rome with gold, so they could do it again with electronic gold. |
|
|
|
Take a look at NXT.
Proof of stake with no interest.
The trouble here is that 1) you need 100% premine, distributed to your phriends
and 2) there is no incentive to mine
You would think that condition 2) would mean your coin is DOA, however -- look at NXT.
There is some incentive to mine - for the phriends.
This is called centralization, you basically have ripple here.
You have a centralized token system. At least the supply is public, so it's still a huge step up from the pure fraud which is charitably referred to as fiat.
Actually I have looked at Nxt , and I don't care for it, too much centralization for my tastes. They are trying to be a platform to add value, I just want to create a coin that is stable and let others create a platform around it , not have it be the platform itself. Their price has done nothing but drop, no floor in sight. Nxt does not have that potential. It is merely a Pump & Sale with no end in sight to its drop. I am designing one that it will never be able to drop below 1 penny.  It is going to do to BTC, what BTC has been doing to the alts. Weapon of Choice will be Ultra Low inflation.   Well then tell me, how do you intend to make an incentive for others to mine (proof of stake or whatever) your coin? We need new blocks to transact.. and if it's only the original dudes who took a premine, then you have your centralization. So why would I want to come in and help secure the network? |
|
|
|
Thank you Pokeytex. I did some digging and I see a lot of mining software returning that flag. For example: http://www.herdprotect.com/ultimatebitcoinminerv1_27.exe-9824b24e93748fd047b796b743b1a7e54ec9ce58.aspxMost likely avast sees that there is satoshi codebase mining code here and is saying: look out, this could be somebody trying to mine with your machine. This coupled with no reports of trouble from any other windows users in this forum are consistent with a false positive on that virus find. HOWEVER... If you ask me any proprietary blobs are malware and so you are running windows - this means: caution - do not store life changing amounts of coin on this system. Even the antivirus sortware itself is likely backdoored. Also it is worth pointing out that the file could have been modified before you got it, unless you checked a signature. SO You should be fine to ignore that warning However a new windows binary is in the works, there have been a couple updates to the woodcoin wallet I am helping to curate so we will publish another with signature to be even more sure it's what you expect and only what you expect. If you are paranoid and/or you do have top secret stuff on the box you are installing, you could run woodcoin in a VM. Depending on what you want to do, for some things you can also use logaddress.org for generating secure addresses. Good luck and God speed |
|
|
|
|
Take a look at NXT.
Proof of stake with no interest.
The trouble here is that 1) you need 100% premine, distributed to your phriends
and 2) there is no incentive to mine
You would think that condition 2) would mean your coin is DOA, however -- look at NXT.
There is some incentive to mine - for the phriends.
This is called centralization, you basically have ripple here.
You have a centralized token system. At least the supply is public, so it's still a huge step up from the pure fraud which is charitably referred to as fiat.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have a Windows wallet binary that doesn't set off all of the virus alarms?
Hmm can you give some more details on the scan or findings? I understand some scanners throw an alert when discovering satoshi mining code, but if something else is going on here we better get to the bottom of it. Even if it is that, we can tweak it to get rid of the alert in a new compilation. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I am hopeful that the Age of Chains will help guide us out of the age of chains to the glorious age of chains |
|
|
|
You are kidding, aren't you? > If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy It seems like we are making the same point here, so I'm not sure the source of disagreement. You describe above how increased quantity of a good will lead to decrease in it's price as valued in a constant-supply monetary token. Isn't this how markets are supposed to work? Supply goes up, demand constant, as we have both been saying.. lower price. As BobK71 points out, allowing individuals to add tokens to the system can never work because of practical considerations (massive losses). Perhaps I am wrong but it seemed that you were claiming that an adjustment to monetary tokens in accordance with production of certain goods could make sense if somehow those practical considerations were solved. As we are in general agreement on other issues I thought I'd pursue the inquiry and see if I could understand this viewpoint. If the viewpoint is that prices vs. a monetary unit changing is bad and prices should remain the same no matter how much of a good are present.. well, I still don't see it. It is likely that a century of rule-by-counterfeiters has clouded all our judgments so lets try to keep an open mind on this kind of thing |
|
|
|
The paper money should stand atleast for more 25 years, then can and should upgrade to digital, but fiat as currencie will always be the most supported, and dollar is the king of fiat currency, there is no way to change it, neither bitcoin has such potencial to take its place. Bitcoin should grow over the next years and become an asset where people will trust their money, the same way they do with gold.
Yes, the dollar is the most popular currency in the world. A Bitcoin will always be an alternative currency. We must learn to work with these two currencies. There is no need to oppose them L0L @ this thread. "Building houses out of straw is the most popular construction method in the world. There's no reason to oppose it" Except it's not, and there are. |
|
|
|
I have provided the logic behind as well as example why keeping monetary base constant would be detrimental.
Hmm, I have gone through the thread again and I don't see that. This is what I'm asking for, as I don't get it. How could keeping the monetary base constant be detrimental to anything? Are you also suggesting that some new distribution of monetary units (in any way) could somehow be appropriate in either of these cases? I really don't see that at all, so I would appreciate some discussion of how that could in any way help with existing price signaling, or in any way whatsoever Once again stop speaking for myself. I'm suggesting nothing in this regard. This is a separate question OK now I am confused. New distribution of monetary units (or destruction of them I suppose) is the only way one can not "keep the monetary base constant", right? I wasn't trying to raise a separate question, sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
I guess you understand what this will lead to?
If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy
That would lead, for example, to some people getting unwarranted advantages over other people since they could either buy goods cheaper than they should or refrain from buying goods dearer than they should
Thanks for helping me talk through this line of argument. You suggest that if the amount of some good increases (increased production), the price in terms of a static money supply would decrease. And of course the inverse, if the amount of the good decreases, the price in terms of a sound money unit will go up. I have claimed that these are natural things that should be embraced as part of free market price discovery, providing signals to producers and consumers. Are you also suggesting that some new distribution of monetary units (in any way) could somehow be appropriate in either of these cases? I really don't see that at all, so I would appreciate some discussion of how that could in any way help with existing price signaling, or in any way whatsoever. Bear in mind that I am not arguing that private issuance of monetary tokens is corruptible and leads to gross inefficiencies and malinvestment, which is clearly true but is a separate issue. I am just saying that there is no economic reason for such issuance to exist - even if somehow managed by a benevolent monarch. If you can come up with some reason, please do state it clearly, I'd be happy to learn something new. Making the price of a good vs. a monetary unit stable even in the event of that good being more (or less) available is an economic problem, not something to be desired. Right? |
|
|
|
I guess you might want to think again
I'm not going to say that, and there is no need to speak for me, either. There was no talk about who has the right to produce new money and then distribute it, and this is what your post comes down to. This is an entirely different question. If you want to somehow challenge the point I made, you should address exactly what I said. Since you seem to heavily miss my point (this is understandable since you are obviously hellbent against anything connected with fiat), I can repeat again, in other words. Money is used as an intermediary in the exchange of goods and consumption of services, and since the amount of goods as well as the volume of services tend to change over time, the amount of money should change accordingly
Thank you, this is exactly the point I wish to disagree with. Yes, money is used as an intermediary and a unit of account in the exchange of goods and the consumption of services. Yes, amount of goods and amount of services can fluctuate. But why does this mean the amount of units available should change? This does not follow in any sense, rather it is the converse statement that makes sense: the quantity of the monetary unit available should NOT change. The absolute quantity of the price is not important.. what is important is that the money remains sound, i.e. nobody has the right to create it from nothing, and of course: the relative costs of one good to another (price of beer vs. average salary for example). The utility of an exchange commodity (money) is based on the supply NOT changing, it is based on markets being able to come to reasonable price discovery in that unit without malfeasance and forced disequilibrium. The idea that more beer produced means there needs to be more monetary tokens distributed is.. well where on earth did it come from? Basic economics suggests that an increase in the supply with equal demand should lead to a lower price. You don't need more tokens, you need smaller prices. Seriously, industry producing more means that I should be able to issue monetary tokens for my friends? Does that sound reasonable to you? |
|
|
|
And this is exactly the reason why Bitcoin may not be suitable for real economy as an ultimate means of exchange
Since in real economy money should be created (and destroyed as well) based on the needs of the economy, and not according to some set in stone algorithm. I don't mean to say that fiat is ideal, but in exactly this respect it beats Bitcoin hands down. Whoever is going to challenge this point (and I guess there will be a lot of such), think first what is the primary function of money. And once you get to it, you may come to understand as well that the amount of money to fulfill this function in the most optimal way depends on the size of the economy, which is not fixed and may expand as easily as contract
This is rank nonsense. If you are going to say "based on the needs of the economy I need the right to produce new currency and give it the people I feel like it"... then we are going to say, on what basis is it that you get to issue the new currency and not us? What if we don' t like your choice of when and where to issue the currency? Giving individuals the power to create new monetary tokens in private is pure idiocy. Look what happens. The well intentioned are quickly driven out by the "more practical folk". |
|
|
|
True that bitcoin can be a universal online currency but that will have to pass to the process to be able to attract people for adoption. It has not been regulated yet and maybe we should look on that first on how to treat that.
Not been regulated yet?? It's the most regulated type of currency in the world by a huge margin. Every money creation event and every transaction are public and audited by everyone. Regulations specify EXACTLY how much can be created, and when. Imagine trying to get fiat mongers to submit to this kind of regulation. Lol, right? |
|
|
|
I have not really bought any bitcoin in a while, i have been mostly trading this last year. but i have been trying to buy today from localbitcoins and bittylicious and it has been a real challenge. they want photos of me holding cards on localbitcoins and on bitty they need about 4 different forms of id, what is going on. this is seriously restrictive to anyone wanting to get into bitcoin, like its meant to be pseudonymous but if the gate ways into bitcoin dont allow that people will be put off.  Why is it hard to get to the exit door in a crowded theatre after the air is thick with smoke and somebody yells "fire" ? |
|
|
|
So far the largest part of the bitcoins has been mined (15,998,175). So, I cannot understand why anyone should be worry if China has most mining pools. Maybe a reason to concern is the next or after the next halving where the cost to mine a bitcoin will be raised if at some point miners cooperate to raise the transaction fees too, so the usage of bitcoins to be prohibitive for most users especially if they use it for micropayments.
This is an interesting topic as such, even outside the question whether the Chinese control Bitcoin. Obviously, when all bitcoins are already mined, miners could only earn through the transaction fees (I hope this won't become a matter of dispute). Raising the fees above some optimal level will be counterproductive, just like raising taxes above a certain percentage in an economy would only lead to a decline of the amount of taxes collected (since producers start suffering losses and cut down production). In the same way, people will simply transact less with larger amounts per transaction, and miners profits instead of growing will be shrinking... In this way, miners will be pretty much shooting themselves in the foot if they become too greedy The issue becomes one of whether liquidity will flee to other coins, for which the transaction fees are lower. If you are interested in this problem, consider: A logarithmic release currency avoids this problem by always having some coinbase reward (coinbase rewards drop far slower than the geometric series / halving of bitcoin) - and yet maintaining a hard cap on the total money supply. |
|
|
|
Funny thing, today a lot of people in occupied north america purchased - with TP-funbucks - food, clothing and shelter. How many do you think purchased Japanese Yen? The dollar extended its record winning streak against the euro amid speculation Donald Trump’s reflationary economic policies will trigger faster monetary tightening.
The greenback has strengthened for 10 straight days against the euro, the longest rally since the shared currency’s debut in 1999.
The dollar is also heading for the biggest two-week advance against the yen since that same year. Ditto the euro. US brand Toilet paper rallying! (Versus other brands of toilet paper we selected). What a great investment! |
|
|
|
You simply don't comprehend Armstrong's thesis. I advised you where to begin your reading.
Sorry to hear of your illness, get well soon! I'll check in on other threads |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
