|
Why isn't there a "No, I'm holding until the end of time" option?
|
|
|
|
You wouldn't happen to have a Subaru Impreza WRX, would you?  |
|
|
|
|
People talk all the time, "Oh if the US government or a big bank wanted to 51% attack BTC, they could do it with some ridiculously small amount of money. Blah blah blah." My point in saying this is that with litecoin using the scrypt algorithm, buying your way to 51% or greater hash power is ABSURDLY cheap compared to the same for Bitcoin. To be honest, I don't care either way, I own both coins, and make money with both of them. If anyone wanted to bring down either network, it would not cost all that much (in the greater scheme of the world's economy), so why are we worrying about small shit like this?
Ps. This is not marketplace relevant.
|
|
|
|
I haven't been around since the early days (I'm very far from an early adopter), but as an 18 year old, I have made a damn nice amount of money simply through technical knowledge and mining. In fact, I plan on buying myself a nice Subaru Impreza WRX pretty soon with my profits.  |
|
|
|
|
I'll offer $60 shipped to 60190, given that this is a much older drive when compared to the new tech.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore the bitcoin will never reach $1000, bulls stop pipe dreaming, why would individuals risk $1000 of their hard earned fiat cash, for something that isn't backed by gold/ silver or a commodity, one way to get seriously burned, but the rationale of a group
quoted for an eventual bump This quote is why I burst out laughing when I read what this guys posts. I can't take him seriously if he truly believes fiat is backed by anything more than BTC.  |
|
|
|
People seem to think that having a faster block finding time is better [...] Obviously there aren't any nodes in space, but the point is that "Satoshi Nakamoto" thought ahead enough to foresee potential distance or connection problems.
Oh brother. The great and wise Satoshi did not extract the 10 minutes interval basically out of his ass for what was intended to be a proof of concept cryptocurrency experiment. No, he envisioned this experiment will grow to the point where the whole universe would use bitcoins, turning the early adopters into filthy rich Jabba the Hutts. Give it a rest already. A smaller interval can be unstable and reduce the security because of increased forks and orphans, so altcoins are a good experiment to see how low can it go. The 10 minute interval is a nice round number that errs on the side of caution. It has nothing to do with you greed induced fantasies of interplanetary wealth and the dancing princess Leia on a chain. Even if I was a bear in the market, I would still post this about BTC. The point is that there is not possible situation in which a 10 minutes block time could lead to nodes being behind. However a 1 minute block time can. It's as simple as that. You're reading too deeply into the words I said (namely deep orbit) and overlooking the over-arching point that all nodes will ALWAYS be on the same page. BTW, I don't care at all for Satoshi, yet you make it seem like I'm a cultist... My point in mentioning his name was to say the BTC creator planned the currency instead of just forking it off of another and changing the block time. |
|
|
|
|
People seem to think that having a faster block finding time is better (and makes LTC a better coin), but they fail to realize that with growing usage, there may be slow connections which can't recieve data quick enough to stay up to date with a 1 min block time. However, Bitcoin's 10 minute block finding time provides enough time for the block to be broadcasted into deep orbit to keep potential nodes up to date. Obviously there aren't any nodes in space, but the point is that "Satoshi Nakamoto" thought ahead enough to foresee potential distance or connection problems. Litecoin tries to solve the "slow" transaction problem by solving blocks irresponsibly quickly.
On top of that, BTC already has a much stronger market hold, and way more people recognize the name "Bitcoin."
|
|
|
|
silkroad is growing. people on the streets dont know what bitcoin is let alone the silkroad. STOP!
Now he's regressed to trying to send a telegram! Exactly what I thought!  |
|
|
|
Single core processor speed as well as hard drive sizes have not significantly improved through the recent years.
That isn't really true afik. Even so hard drive capacity grows faster than moores law. It is just that it has become unfeasible to use hard disks in the way they were used before. In the past it was possible to re-write and re-read hard disk many times in their lifetime. But since transfer speeds are increasing one exponent below that, mostly linear this becomes a bottleneck. The ultimate death of the hard drives will not be that they can't be produced with higher capacity but that they can't be filled and read back two times before they become unusable. SSD memory grows even faster still, but it too has some issues in that regard. It grows to the power of three where bandwidth grows to the power of two, not as bad as the 2:1 relationship with hard drives, but still. The other issue is that the rapid growth in capacity is facilitated by storing more information in a single capacitor which makes them less reliable. All in all increasing capacity should outperform the growth of the blockchain for quite some time. And after that I doubt that bitcoin will still be relevant. It should still be around but exponential growth should be over. And what sense does make a limited amount cryptocurrency make for sustained exponential growth? None, it has to either hit a ceiling or fade away. So ... SSD and bandwidth grow slower than bitcoin transactions? Or quicker? To all those people talking about pruning or any such optimizations: what we are considering here is growth rate not file size so please stop talking about pruning. My arguement is that the blockchain will grow faster than bandwidth / storage, making the P2P model invalid.Only people with valid arguements about growth should continue to post in this thread. Your argument is just plain wrong though. There is absolutely no way bitcoin will out pace the already exponential growth of technology and storage (and definitely not in 6 months). What you fail to realize is that storage and technology have a 30 year head start. Try graphing two exponential functions, and give one of those functions an exponent of (t+30). No matter what you do (within reason, because we know the relative growth rates of the block chain), you WILL NOT get those graphs to converge within a reasonable timeframe. Look, I understand there is a theoretical flaw in bitcoin. I won't argue that. But realize that we don't live in theory land where friction doesn't exist and physics all works perfectly. We live in the real world where theoretical problems don't become real problems until after the human species goes extinct. |
|
|
|
It wouldn't matter then. Bitcoin would be as worthless as fiat!  No. If those new 3600 coin were sold at $1000, it would only accomodate $1.2 billion a year. That is not enough for bitcoin to get out of the sandbox. $1000 is not the current price. If btc is t to succeed, the value must be much higher. How do you think that value will rise if everyone has 50,000btc as soon as they open the program? You must do something for your btc and early adopters have done their share. |
|
|
|
Back to topic, guys?  Turns out Moore's Law is both correct and incorrect. But in a way it's not so favorable to Bitcoin. Single core processor speed as well as hard drive sizes have not significantly improved through the recent years. That's because the desktop PC is dying. Everything goes smaller and mobile. And these mobile devices are getting better and better. And the processors and storage media smaller and smaller. It's only in this respect now that Moore's Law still holds true. Either way, it's Satoshi himself who mentions that mining and blockchain storage will migrate to specialized data centers. And I'm afraid these specialists will turn out to be those corporations who don't care much if their servers cost $100,000 or a million. Have you heard of a company called Intel? Yeah, they not only follow Moore's law (since Gordon Moore was a co-founder), but their products have shown upward movement on a log scale in terms of transistors per chip, size of transistors, power consumption (decreasing, obviously). Not to mention that every time they have released a product since the days of Core 2 Duo, there has ALWAYS been a 5-10% increase in single threaded performance. Please do a little research before spouting lies. |
|
|
|
I wrote in depth about Moore's law this year for English. And while it's true that it was "just an observation 40 years ago," people have done plot studies of exactly how accurate Moore's law has been (read: The Singularity is Near by Ray Kuzweil).
In addition to the astounding accuracy of Moore's law, the general implications of the axiom hold true for nearly every technology from the past to the future. Much before Moore's law (or even Gordon Moore himself) existed, there were various paradigms of technology (read: vacuum tubes, transistors, etc.). Because of the obvious path for technological innovation, new technologies will arise and continue to follow Moore's law.
In fact, HP already uses platinum latch technology for printer cartridges and is working on moving that technology over to IC's. And at the same time, companies like Intel and IBM are putting a ton of work into carbon nanotubes. The future is literally unfathomable. Following your closed-minded notions, it's easily understandable why people in the 80's thought computers would always be room-sized.
RE: BitCloud I am just thinking about it logically, ignoring any historical precedents. "The past doesnt predict the future." Correct logic predicts the future. If someone invented a new mechanism of storage that was more efficient than magnetic or flash in memory storage, it still wouldnt change the logical premise that there is a hard limit to how much data can be stored on a chip or, lets just say, 'storage device', and therefore bitcoin is theoretically flawed, because the size of the blockchain will never stop growing over time. Of course there may be some 'out of this world' technology that comes along which cannot be even imagined right now, that makes storage unlimited and therefore bitcoin feasible. Maybe a bit like nuclear fusion supposedly makes energy unlimited. That is a big , crazy assumption. Practically, if the blockchain keeps growing at the current rate, i think we're going to see some real problems with scalability of bitcoin in the much more closer future - before flash or magnetic storage is superseeded - i'm talking about in the next 6 months. That is an absolutely absurd time line for the average user to run out of space for the block chain. I understand that you firmly believe the block chain growth will out pace the produced storage space (theoretically), but there already exists enough storage space on the average computer to hold the block chain for years to come (and you can quote me on that). In addition to that, storage will continue to increase at an increasing rate (read: exponential growth) through this paradigm and onto the next (it's true that the past doesn't predict the future, but it gives a damn good idea). Once a simple method for truncating the block chain has been distributed, the storage argument won't even be valid anymore. |
|
|
|
|
I wrote in depth about Moore's law this year for English. And while it's true that it was "just an observation 40 years ago," people have done plot studies of exactly how accurate Moore's law has been (read: The Singularity is Near by Ray Kuzweil).
In addition to the astounding accuracy of Moore's law, the general implications of the axiom hold true for nearly every technology from the past to the future. Much before Moore's law (or even Gordon Moore himself) existed, there were various paradigms of technology (read: vacuum tubes, transistors, etc.). Because of the obvious path for technological innovation, new technologies will arise and continue to follow Moore's law.
In fact, HP already uses platinum latch technology for printer cartridges and is working on moving that technology over to IC's. And at the same time, companies like Intel and IBM are putting a ton of work into carbon nanotubes. The future is literally unfathomable. Following your closed-minded notions, it's easily understandable why people in the 80's thought computers would always be room-sized.
|
|
|
|
My apologies if this has been mentioned, but if day trading causes the volatility and coins take at least a year to decay, how does that decrease day trading? |
|
|
|
I have 30 days to return them for full refund. You can flash the bios to unlock the voltage. Gigabyte locked it cause the stock core is already high and people were pumping more volts in them for higher clocks then RMAing them when they burned out.
This is not true, it is HARDWARE locked. Nothing a bios flash can do. Scyth is correct. Gigabyte chose to use a non-reference PCB with their choice of voltage controller so a bios flash may be able to raise the voltage if you change that value, but you will not have on the fly software voltage control. |
|
|
|
|
Basically, if this new trading platform is to have any chance to succeed, if it's worth doing, it's worth over-doing. That means some substantial money needs to be thrown down on network security and anti-DDoS protection, as well as quite literally tens of thousands for server hardware alone. Their system needs to, as mentioned be able to handle absolutely insane transaction/second and site visits without flinching. This shouldn't be that hard, seriously. The bitcoin network is a t 817 PetaFLOPS. We should be able to get a decent system going.
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe just a preorder sale thread that someone would be willing to keep updated similar to the asicminer shares thread.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just confused by your supposed support of an uncontrolled current when you so blatantly support broken fiat spending?
I'm not against investing in btc because it's part of how a currency works. You have money in your bank account don't you? If you say yes, then you can't possibly say holding bitcoins is bad. The increase in value is only a side effect of increased adoption and market presence. I guess my point is that investments and holding are an essential part of a working currency because they show support and build a user base of willing users.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
