Forget about what his wiki page is saying or whatever we have read about him. Reading through Satoshi's post on this forum, anyone with common sense and good understanding of English language could see clearly that the Bitcoin founder is by no means a Japanese. I spent the whole day reading through them, and here are some outstanding posts he made prior to his disappearance. The perfect use of English is telling and undeniable.
"Perfect use of English" does not exclude people for whom English is a second language. For example, the great writer Vladimir Nabokov is native to Russia, but I find that his command of the English language is better than most native English speakers. |
|
|
|
Hello all, i have always wondered about what happens after the last coin of a COIN has been mined, does that mean that people would not be able to buy it again?
That seems to be a common misconception Consider this: each day, a million bitcoins are bought and sold, yet only 1800 are mined. |
|
|
|
In hindsight, I should have had bought a £30 GBP printer to at least print my private keys.
Caan seems to have fallen for the common misconception that all of Satoshi's bitcoins are stored in only a few addresses. The truth is that each block reward earned by Satoshi was stored in a different address. His 980,000 BTC would have been stored in 19600 addresses (50 BTC block reward), so his wallet held 19600 private keys. Would Satoshi really think that printing 19600 private keys on paper is a reasonable way to back them up? At 120 keys per page, that's 163 pages of text. |
|
|
|
1. No mining or staking.
Since POW (or POS) is what makes a decentralized digital currency possible, how will your currency work without it? The "miner" submits a group of transactions, and an algorithm finds all the groups that don't intersect and they get "mined". Miners get paid something small, for a seconds work. As low and high fees will be guaranteed to be processed, it pays to have a mix of the two. You get paid the same either way. The idea is to get rid of miner pools and high fees and return it to the hands of the people. Fast cheap transactions would get people using it. Maybe no cap, so less of an investment. Sure someone has had this idea already. I humbly suggest that you learn more about the design of Bitcoin before you try to fix it or improve it. |
|
|
|
Many of them even call it "math", which assumed they consider there is only one discipline in mathematics.
In the U.S. and Canada, it is called "math". "maths" is the British variation. |
|
|
|
|
I have met many clueless old people who know nothing about wiring or plumbing. They may not text, but they sit in front of the boob tube every day for hours.
|
|
|
|
1. No mining or staking.
Since POW (or POS) is what makes a decentralized digital currency possible, how will your currency work without it? |
|
|
|
|
An asset with no utility other than being a store-of-value has very little value. I believe that acting solely a store-of-value would not be enough in order for Bitcoin to sustain itself. The main issue is stability. If Bitcoin is used solely as a store-of-value, then it is nothing more than a speculative bubble, at any price. That makes it an unreliable store-of-value and a poor store-of-value.
Bitcoin cannot succeed solely as a store of value. It must have significant utility in order to sustain its value. Usage as a medium-of-exchange would give it that utility. The utility of a medium-of-exchange is necessary for the success of Bitcoin and will allow it to also be used as a store-of-value.
|
|
|
|
|
Beyond the text of the search, Google also bases the results on your search and site history. If you frequently visit sites mentioning Trump or do searches related to Trump, your search for "Clinton Epstein" is likely to include results related to Trump.
|
|
|
|
I mean, why Bitcoin nodes keep all the data of all blocks, back to the genesis block? The majority of this information is not required for processing new blocks and may be ignored. Well, some statistical resources should still keep it, but to run a node it's possible to just delete the majority of historical data. Am I right?
Once a database of the UTXOs is constructed, the blocks are no longer needed. The blocks are kept in order to provide them to other nodes and to reconstruct the UTXO database when necessary. Blocks must also be kept for resolving branches. |
|
|
|
However, a simple telescope extends the range of the eye, and shows us how wrong you are.
A telescope doesn't actually extend the range of the eye -- you can see other galaxies without a telescope. I think that some people are confused about that. A telescope is really just a magnifying glass designed for longer distances. |
|
|
|
|
"Enter your private key" is a big red flag.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice video. I agree with the point being made. Too much talk about Inception, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Typically, the word "consensus" refers to the transaction and block validation rules, which is different from your "consensus".
Regardless, if Bitcoin goes mainstream, fractional reserve banking will be inevitable and there will effectively be 21 billion bitcoins, not 21 million. That will have a major effect on the price of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Ethereum needs its own forum so people don't have to come to a Bitcoin forum for tech support.
|
|
|
|
Consider this: Today's mining equipment is thousands of times more efficient than it was a few years ago, and yet the amount of energy consumed by miners has increased tremendously simply because the value of the block reward has increased (while the cost of energy has been about the same).
Still considering how efficient the new mining equipment now than way back, it is still a huge difference if you compare the energy consumed at the same hash today than years ago. The block reward has nothing to do with this. Seems you are confused now. It is possible that I am confused. As I understand it, the person wrote that as mining equipment becomes more efficient the total amount of energy consumed by mining will decrease. I disagree, but if that is not what was stated then I apologize for my misinterpretation. However, I believe that I am still correct and my statement that you quoted supports me -- you must agree that the total amount of energy being consumed by mining has not gone down even though the efficiency of the equipment has increased. The economics of why the amount of energy consumed depends only on the value of the block reward is little difficult to explain. Suppose there are only two miners and their hash rates are the same. Now, suppose one of them installs new equipment that is 10 times more efficient. He could maintain the same hash rate and lower his energy consumption by 90% and increase profit, but he could also raise his hash rate and make even more profit. So he raises his hash rate. In response, the other miner is forced to upgrade his equipment and raise his hash rate in order to compete. Now both miners are raising their hash rates in order to maximize their profits. How much do they raise their hash rates? Each miner raises their hash rate until the marginal cost approaches the marginal revenue, i.e. until the cost of the energy being consumed approaches the value of the block reward. This example shows that the energy being consumed depends on the value of the block reward and not the efficiency. |
|
|
|
Energy efficiency has no effect on the amount of energy used by miners. The amount of energy used in mining is only related to the value of the block reward and the cost of the energy because of the economic incentives. If mining equipment become twice as efficient, then miners will simply double the amount of equipment.
Consider this: Today's mining equipment is thousands of times more efficient than it was a few years ago, and yet the amount of energy consumed by miners has increased tremendously simply because the value of the block reward has increased (while the cost of energy has been about the same)..
Well... I don't agree. Here you are making the assumption that electricity costs account for most of the expenses in a mining farm. From what I have heard, that is not the case. Capital costs (purchasing mining rigs, installing them, setting up cooling systems.etc) constitute the largest chunk of expenses. And nowadays the most hi-tech mining rigs can cost you a fortune. And at the same time, the electricity prices have remained very cheap in some of the countries such as Russia and China. Most of the mining rigs have a limited lifespan. And they need to be replaced after a fixed time period. If the miners don't purchase the newer rigs (with higher hash power), they won't be able to stay afloat. But at the same time, if you purchase a solar power unit, it can work for many years without the need for replacement. I agree with you that capital costs are significant, though I don't know to what degree. However, I believe that history shows more support for my assessment. |
|
|
|
I think you are spending too much time talking about private keys. Bitcoin users never encounter private keys. They only encounter addresses, seed phrases, and passwords.
snip
I don't totally agree with that, many users prefer using private keys and single address wallets (paper wallets). Because you can easily check your balance and your transactions on the blockchain at any moment, you can sign a message to prove you own that address/wallet whenever you want, and you can simply import your paper wallet in every software wallet by just flashing a QR code, and then deleting your software wallet after using it. Moreover you can secure your private key with a passphrase thanks to BIP38 encrypt feature. At last, transaction fees are generally lower when you send funds from a single address than when you send them from several addresses at the same time. I agree with what you wrote, but most people don't use paper wallets. Heck, most people don't even use wallets -- they have an account at some exchange. At last, transaction fees are generally lower when you send funds from a single address than when you send them from several addresses at the same time.
That is not true. Transaction fees depend on the number of inputs, regardless of the number of addresses. If you send bitcoins that you received in several transactions, the fee will be the same regardless if they were received at one address or over many addresses. |
|
|
|
You are assuming that the future mining rigs will consume the same level of energy as the current ones. That is wrong in my opinion. As the technological advances are made, the mining rigs will become more energy efficient. Right now, none of the major players are involved and companies such as Bitmain, Asicminer and Innosilicon have almost a complete monopoly over this sector.
But in case there is a major spike in the Bitcoin exchange rates (i.e if it hits $50K or 100K per coin), then the demand for mining equipment will rocket upward and we can expect major players such as IBM to enter the mining rig sector. With their entry, there will be more innovation, and the performance and the energy efficiency of the rigs will go up.
Energy efficiency has no effect on the amount of energy used by miners. The amount of energy used in mining is only related to the value of the block reward and the cost of the energy because of the economic incentives. If mining equipment become twice as efficient, then miners will simply double the amount of equipment. Consider this: Today's mining equipment is thousands of times more efficient than it was a few years ago, and yet the amount of energy consumed by miners has increased tremendously simply because the value of the block reward has increased (while the cost of energy has been about the same).. |
|
|
|
One could read "wallet address" as being an address in a wallet.
One could read it that way, but typically it is used to mean "the address of a wallet", which is incorrect and why I included it in that list. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
