A Ponzi or MLM use a single source of supply to create a profit center. You can buy bitcoins on the open market. That would be like buying your competitors products to sell and would kill your pyramid.
MLM people like MLM. They would get all their people in just to make a profit off it.  It's also easy to cheat. Do MLM people like cheaters? Freedom isn't cheating. However, one of the things that I am looking for is ideas for making it difficult to do the thing that might be considered cheating by some... to guide folks into the direction of using it as it is. There might come about alt-Ponzicoin clients. But, if we don't do it with Bitcoin, somebody just might apply this idea to Litecoin, or one of the others, that has its own blockchain. The point is, nobody could control a Bitcoin MLM that was built right into the client. If it caught on in the MLM croud, Bitcoin would explode. What I'm saying is that your idea is not an MLM. It doesn't work like an MLM. You're not going to fool anyone. Basically, it is EXACTLY like simple MLM. It works like an automated chain letter that has no mailing or emailing requirements. You give your install program to your friends. They install it; same as installing the Bitcoin-Qt client. They buy some bitcoins into their wallet, check the checkbox, and hit the button. Precisely .5 bitcoins is sent from the wallet (plus the miner fee), and a new install is created for them to pass on to their MLM friends. There could be a splash page built right into the client that explains how to use Bitcoin for everyday living. Sure, they could "cheat." They could use the install program they just created, and continue to use it until they had created 5 new Bitcoin-Qt clients so that they could get paid more. But that is what I am asking for here... methods to slow down this "cheating" which really is simply freedom. Bitcoin is highly resistant to the rules you want to impose. You also offer no incentive to slow down cheating. You can't design a tool with no purpose for its use. If you want to create an MLM using bitcoins, then color some bitcoins and offer an incentive for using them. That's what colored coins are for. You can even create a wallet that uses them in addition to bitcoins. |
|
|
|
A Ponzi or MLM use a single source of supply to create a profit center. You can buy bitcoins on the open market. That would be like buying your competitors products to sell and would kill your pyramid.
MLM people like MLM. They would get all their people in just to make a profit off it. It's also easy to cheat. Do MLM people like cheaters? Freedom isn't cheating. However, one of the things that I am looking for is ideas for making it difficult to do the thing that might be considered cheating by some... to guide folks into the direction of using it as it is. There might come about alt-Ponzicoin clients. But, if we don't do it with Bitcoin, somebody just might apply this idea to Litecoin, or one of the others, that has its own blockchain. The point is, nobody could control a Bitcoin MLM that was built right into the client. If it caught on in the MLM croud, Bitcoin would explode. What I'm saying is that your idea is not an MLM. It doesn't work like an MLM. You're not going to fool anyone. |
|
|
|
Will this thing be unidentifiable from outside?
What I mean is, does each single device have a unique ID? I don't want my movement be tracked which is why I currently cannot use mobile bitcoin payments T_T... This device might change that but only it it does not have a unique ID that can be identified wirelessly
I would hope that having a unique ID would be optional and that it can be changed easily. |
|
|
|
A Ponzi or MLM use a single source of supply to create a profit center. You can buy bitcoins on the open market. That would be like buying your competitors products to sell and would kill your pyramid.
MLM people like MLM. They would get all their people in just to make a profit off it. It's also easy to cheat. Do MLM people like cheaters? |
|
|
|
The fear is that a cartel of big, centralized, have-huge-data-pipes miners would drive out smaller miners by forcing up the block size high enough so the smaller miners have to drop out.
Sounds like an irrational fear to me. Big centralized miners couldn't care less about little miners. Little miners are insignificant. And what are these big centralized miners going to use to fill up these huge blocks? Fake transactions? That makes no sense. Real transactions? Then there's a real need for such huge block sizes. Yes they can make fake transactions to fill blocks. That would partially shut some miners with small bandwidth. The occasional very large blocks might cause the smaller blocks to not propagate and thus get orphaned. The low bandwidth miners would need to make up for it by increasing their hashrate if they have other advantages like cheap power or government subsidies. It's just another competition vector. |
|
|
|
What's a hard fork, and what's a soft fork? FFS I've asked this before and no one answered. Can't the bitcoin genius step up to the plate and use this forum to educate instead of joke and berate?
I await...
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9173/what-is-a-hard-forkSimply put, a so-called hard fork is a change of the Bitcoin protocol that is not backwards-compatible; i.e., older client versions would not accept blocks created by the updated client, considering them invalid. Obviously, this can create a blockchain fork when nodes running the new version create a separate blockchain incompatible with the older software. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-forkSoftforks restrict block acceptance rules in comparison to earlier versions.
That way, any blocks considered valid by the newer version are still valid in the old version. If at least 51% of the mining power shifts to the new version, the system self-corrects. (If less than 51% switch to the new version, it behaves like a hardfork though.)
Blocks created by old versions of BitcoinCore that are invalid under the new paradigm might commence a short-term "old-only fork". Eventually they would be overtaken by a fork of the new paradigm, as the hashing power working on the old paradigm would be smaller ("only old versions") than on the new paradigm ("accepted by all versions"). |
|
|
|
|
A Ponzi or MLM use a single source of supply to create a profit center. You can buy bitcoins on the open market. That would be like buying your competitors products to sell and would kill your pyramid.
|
|
|
|
"Which bitcoin do you want? Prisoner of War or Piece of Shit?"
Bumper sticker slogans. Pure nonsense propaganda. Trolls are desperate now since they don't have any logic left. |
|
|
|
Drugs, Prostitution and filesharing is still alive and well, the problem is people often have this vision of governments being an all powerful force that can reach out and take on anyone they like, when in reality they're a bunch of incompetent morons.  Update the current president for you. This forum has gone herp derp |
|
|
|
India, China, Russia love their Gold and the Chinese economy is going very well; they are the first world economy in PPA They also share a secret love for tungsten. |
|
|
|
Elements to make mining competitive are cheap power, good connectivity, cheap heat management, and technology development. Cartels can form that take advantage of either of these elements. As long as all of these elements are not overly abundant in only a few geographical regions, mining can stay decentralized.
A market entity is not restricted to a single geographical location. McDonald's have locations all over the world. That's not the point. McDonald's is also not a cartel. Geography plays a part in where you can have beef or pork sandwiches as well. My point is that nobody has every competitive edge in everything. Anyone that can gain a competitive edge over certain resources will attempt to exploit them. This merely addresses profitability. If you want to realize an actual profit, you will need customers, and customers need incentives. |
|
|
|
Enjoy driving your Tesla on a dirt road. |
|
|
|
Highly doubt bitcoin can go up more than 1000. There is no easy money in the world.
It's like the press proclaiming an overnight success to someone that struggled for decades to achieve it. |
|
|
|
Man, Fonzie's and mine shotrs are goin great. How are your guys' shorts?
Really? Where? I don't see any volume. |
|
|
|
OMG
It's 395 on Bitstamp
Sweet! Early Christmas sales have begun! |
|
|
|
-trolling-
Bitcoin did not appear in 2014. I'm not sure what is more tragic, your short-sightedness or the fact that you literally spend hours on this forum trying to convince yourself you are right. A quick look shows me you average 40 post per day on this board this month. If, as you have mentioned earlier, trading is not a cooperative game, then why are you here? Surely not for trading advice or insights. Your insolence and high horse approach is certainly not helping anyone reconsider their interest for Bitcoin as well. So what is your purpose here? Why are you so obsessed with Bitcoin. isnt it is obvious that he was paid troll, maybe paid by the bank This is why it's so much fun responding to the trolling. I probably made more posts today than any day since I joined this forum, most of them in response to Lambie Pie. Banksters are getting desperate. Isn't it hilarious? Thank you for not quoting the trolls. |
|
|
|
I propose the following rule to determine the block size limit, once the block reward is low
The block size limit would increase (or decrease), by X%, if total transaction fees in the last N blocks is Y Bitcoin or more (or less).
......
I am aware miners could also manipulate fees by including transactions with large fees and not broadcasting these to the network. However why would miners in this scenario want to manipulate the limit upwards?
The fear is that a cartel of big, centralized, have-huge-data-pipes miners would drive out smaller miners by forcing up the block size high enough so the smaller miners have to drop out. Elements to make mining competitive are cheap power, good connectivity, cheap heat management, and technology development. Cartels can form that take advantage of either of these elements. As long as all of these elements are not overly abundant in only a few geographical regions, mining can stay decentralized. |
|
|
|
I have suggested watching the hash rate to find the bottom. Why? Well, if miners start taking machines offline, it affects supply by reducing the coins mined to the normal 3600 daily or less. But more importantly, it indicates the lowest price that miners must sell at to make a profit (of course every miner will have a slightly different level). Any lower and miners must hold and hope for a price increase. To sell would guarantee that they couldn't pay the monthly bills. That behavior could dramatically affect supply. It looks like we are at the point: https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-ratehttps://blockchain.info/charts/difficultyThis isn't a statistical artifact due to a bad luck streak? |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin $447 on localbitcoins, the only true global marketplace.
|
|
|
|
Even though i sold half my btc at $380 last month if we hit $3k it would make enough of a difference to my long term FI goal that I could pretty much quit working on the spot.
Therefore i think it's unlikely as I am never that lucky
I thought that you were buying those coins back in the low $300s? NOT enough cash flow to buy them all back? By the way, trend reversal again, we are in the $300s... back to a bear market.... Fuck..  you were saying? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
