Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage.
Latest news was that bandwith is no issue. That was why thinblocks was not accepted by core. If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases).
What? You mean, we don't need to make bitcoin usefull now, because it will be a reserve currency? Really? Thinblocks weren't accepted by core for reasons besides "bandwidth is no issue." Is there even a thinblock BIP under consideration? So, why then? On r/bitcoin several core devs played it down exactly of this reason. That it is not integrated and there are no plans to integrate it while it is available and working can be considered as a refusement to prepare bitcoin for scaling. Bitcoin is already useful, right now. You may stop fretting and pouting about that.
Yes. Just yes. Bitcoin is usefull and I wish it to stay this. But it's usefullness is already declining. It needs more time to use it privately. Bitcoin is on a trajectory to become a reserve currency.
Are you talking with banksters? I do. They don't even think about it. Bitcoin is not on the way to become a reserve currency. In fact it is far away from crossing the point where it has any worth beside the expectation it will be used as a payment system. Beside all this - your signature is telling a lot about your mindframe. You seem to want very much to tell people what bitcoin is - and what it is not. No thinblock BIP = no thinblocks. You are welcome to go deep diving into the esoteric specifics of why thinblocks aren't the best solution, but don't spread lies about how 'they were rejected because bandwidth doesn't matter.' You offer no evidence supporting the assertion that Bitcoin's usefulness is "already declining." The market says you are wrong about that. Your personal anecdotes about banksters are not relevant. VC/fintech investment in BTC is exploding; Hearn's R3 consortium is going hard. And here's the thing that really makes you look clueless: USAA is now offering Coinbase integration on all customer accounts. As for my signature, it's not *me* telling people what Bitcoin is/isn't but rather three noted experts stating the facts. Sorry if that hurts your butt because you think you understand Bitcoin better than Hal Finney.  |
|
|
|
And about Safecoin, they use ring signatures if you like.
Safecoin is cryptocoin that doesn't use a blockchain. Ummmmmmm, how does Safecoin use ring signatures if it doesn't have a blockchain? From where do the required " random transaction outputs on the blockchain" originate? |
|
|
|
Seekingalpha is a pretty iffy source of information. Its just a proprietary financial blog aggregator. There are some credible people who post there, but otherwise anyone can create an account and start posting. This guy, for example, only has 45 followers. Sounds like a great place for Pegasus to do his thing!  Risto and amino would also be a good fit there. |
|
|
|
Given the topic of the article what I find interesting is the scammy business model of getting someone interested in an article and then attempting to "force" them to register midstream in order extract personal information for commercial advantage. This is accomplished by manipulating the html code and like most forms of DRM can be defeated. In this case a fast Edit > Select All does the trick after changing the page number in the url. The attack on privacy and freedom by the business model of the publisher seems more relevant to me than the content of the article. Edit: It is not the regulators who have to worry about Monero, it is businesses who use deceit to collect people's personal information and then traffic in it for commercial advantage that have a lot to worry about Monero, starting of course with the publisher of the said article. Screengrabs also work, if formatting matters. Anyone know of a 'Pause Button' plug-in that will halt whatever tricks a site tries to make your browser do? I stopped reading SeekingAlpha for exactly that reason. Someday, browsers will be able to generate enough tacoshi while reading the article to feed the site's cryptowall. I think Brave is going in that direction, but haven't bothered to try it. Still, nice to see Monero mentioned on a (sort of) mainstream media finance news blog thingy. Can't wait until I can pull up Kitco and look at historical charts for the Monero/silver ratio!  |
|
|
|
the reason why this will work is because the maid coins are tied to the safe network. u cant get into the safe network without owning maidcoins, you cant upload to it's cloud storage network without using maidcoins to buy safecoins. i explained it in layman's terms is all. finally, when you purchase safecoins, the maidcoins used for the purchase will be burned. reducing the supply of available maid left on the market for btc trade. i hope that basic math can take over from this point for you.
What a kludgy, convoluted mess. Not only does it resemble the NAUT swap fiasco, the "burned" supply goofiness smells like the Counterpary and VIA failures. These Rube Goldberg ICO and shell game IPO schemes never turn out well for anyone except the guy that took everyone else's Bitcoins. As for "basic math," I'd love to have some explanation of the cryptography behind Safecoin's alleged private/untraceable/unlinkable properties. But every time I ask, I get a different answer. I'm not seeing an advantage over SIA or Storj here, to put it nicely in an understatement. Currently the Maidsafecoin is held on the Bitcoin blockchain It is blockchainless , so truly anonymous . |
|
|
|
What's that about sig restrictions in classic? that looks like a backward step.
Sig restrictions in Classic?  But we were told the only change was a simple variable tweak of max_block_size, from 1MB to 2MB.  Sig restrictions sounds like something that needs more than "not much" testing. Such a change is likely to become ossified and semi-permanent, so we have to get it right the first time. I hope Toomin is (relatively) sober when he tests the sig restrictions!  What else is Classic hiding and/or downplaying? More XT-style Easter eggs, like Hearn's checkpoints and blacklists? |
|
|
|
Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage.
Latest news was that bandwith is no issue. That was why thinblocks was not accepted by core. If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases).
What? You mean, we don't need to make bitcoin usefull now, because it will be a reserve currency? Really? Thinblocks weren't accepted by core for reasons besides "bandwidth is no issue." Is there even a thinblock BIP under consideration? Bitcoin is already useful, right now. You may stop fretting and pouting about that. Bitcoin is on a trajectory to become a reserve currency. Did you read the two statements from Hal and davout? Did you learn anything from them? If you did, it isn't obvious. You need more clues! Or maybe you just need less misinformation. Try staying away from /r/btc. It's a hotbed of lies, conspiracy theories, and other forms of agitprop. |
|
|
|
You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?
What's worse? Small people can't host bitcoin - or small people can't use bitcoin? Do you dream of a world where every poor man can proudly spend his hdd to host a payment network only the rich can use? Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage. If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases). You are new here, so please review these two statements before spending more time worrying about your false 'can't use vs. can't host' dilemma: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain". Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.
George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.
I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.
|
|
|
|
I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.
I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people. They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION. Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized. The Winkelvii definitely grok the ethos. Everyone should use Gemini or Kraken instead of Coinbase and Circle. Supporting CoinbaseCoin only makes sense if you don't understand (or fear/resent) how the property of antifragility emerges from Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network. |
|
|
|
when the Safe network goes live and you'll need to convert your Maidsafe coin to Safecoin That 'exchage-the-one-thing-for-some-other-presently-vaporous-thing' thing didn't exactly work out well for Nautilus. Why will Maid work where NAUT (miserably) failed? It's a method of distribution, POW has failed for more coins than it has succeeded for POS has failed for more coins than it has succeeded for . IPO and ICO have failed more than succeeded A method of distribution can be good for some projects and bad for other projects depending on what that project is, what it does and how it does it, do you honestly not understand this or are you intentionally being stupid? Och, aren't we a wee bit touchy this evening?  Other than generic platitudes about POW/POS, do you know any specific reason why Maid's 'exchage-real-BTC-now-for-some-presently-vaporous-thing-later' scheme will be any less of a failure than NAUT's similar attempt? |
|
|
|
when the Safe network goes live and you'll need to convert your Maidsafe coin to Safecoin That 'exchage-the-one-thing-for-some-other-presently-vaporous-thing' thing didn't exactly work out well for Nautilus. Why will Maid work where NAUT (miserably) failed? safecoins are kind of not really a coin. they are a unit of storage space on the network.. so by purchasing safecoins, ur purchasing storage space. as u upload to the network safecoins would be deducted from your balance based on how much storage you use. at least this is what i understand it to be. You are a Hero member, yet still must post a disclaimer explaining nobody really knows WTF Maid is. The New Internet ®? A mirage? A chimera? No wonder the pumpers get so defensive when you try to pin down specifics. |
|
|
|
there are problems with CoinJoin, but not with DarkSend other than it takes planning (ahead of time mixing) which takes longer. In Dash Evolution it will be instant as one won't have to worry about IP address exposure nor multiple rounds (and timing issues that entails) which DarkSend already fixes. Are there any peer-reviewed studies about these alleged differences between CoinJoin and DarkSend? Specifically, how is it that DarkSend (by making the mixing process take hours/days) "already fixes" the problems that Confidential Transactions avoids in the first place? |
|
|
|
What about the exchanges? Do they have any liabilities to worry about if they start sending customers "Classic" coins after they've bought bitcoins? It seems like there could be no question that the original 1MB version of the software would be "bitcoins" before a court of law, but what about coins that are only valid on the forked network?
The intra- and post-contentious-hardfork nightmare scenario should terrify Coinbase (and their lawyers/insurers/investors) but for some unfathomable reason they insist on pushing forward into such uncharted, fog-of-war obscured territory. They seem to be intent on confiscating all their users' CoreCoins (IE Bitcoins) and replacing them with BIS-friendly ClassicCoins. Of course, This Will Not Stand. But regardless, Brian Armstrong has been sufficiently motivated to go all-in by supporting the governance coup to the hilt. |
|
|
|
Why DarkSend works so well
{HOPIUM}
Any plans to fix DarkSend with CT in light of this? (DarkSend is Dash's special version of CoinJoin.)
Bitcoin Privacy: "Confidential Transactions" Feature Can Fix Some of CoinJoin's Problemshttps://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-privacy-confidential-transactions-feature-can-fix-some-of-coinjoin-s-problems-1457703275“It’s very difficult to do a CoinJoin in a way that improves privacy, and it’s also very difficult to measure how much privacy we get. By hiding amounts, we allow combining transactions in a way that we no longer have this clear correlation. [With Confidential Transactions], I have a couple of outputs, Mark has a couple of outputs, and nobody can see the amounts. When we put them together, now it’s just a pile of outputs with no one else associated.” |
|
|
|
I understand the Matrix. But still dont know if I have to invest in ETH, could you give advice about this please? Nobody except The Architect (AKA Grandmaster Szaboshi) and The Oracle (Dr. Backamoto) understands The Matrix. The only ETH I continuously hold are the ones provided by profitable trades. Actual Advice Animal: Get into ETH, get out when profitable, let the profit ride. “Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.”
-J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973) |
|
|
|
when the Safe network goes live and you'll need to convert your Maidsafe coin to Safecoin That 'exchage-the-one-thing-for-some-other-presently-vaporous-thing' thing didn't exactly work out well for Nautilus. Why will Maid work where NAUT (miserably) failed? |
|
|
|
Any thoughts on ETH guys? Just cant get a grip on this BEAST. thanks
How many BTC would you like to have owned for $14? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? You are not alone. If I understand you correct you are stating with the above that ETH is a buy and will head to 100$+ ? And with the above you are saying that because of ETH more money flows in to crypto world and eventually will flow into XMR. Did I understood correct? You have the obvious half correct, but in order to earn full marks still need to appreciate and embrace the subtleties of the logos, ethos, and pathos. Keep digging. Discorporate and return to the source. |
|
|
|
Any thoughts on ETH guys? Just cant get a grip on this BEAST. thanks
How many BTC would you like to have owned for $14? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? You are not alone.  To be clear, XMR currently stands alone with BTC and ETH as the only Szaboshi-endorsed cryptos available for retail consumption. Short and FUD trash like Maid and Dash. Don't hate on the legit stuff. ETH is doing a lot of heavy lifting for XMR...  |
|
|
|
Start with countries off-sides from the U.S. which aren't under international sanctions. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, UAE, Uruguay, Fiji, Seychelles, Madagascar, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Laos, Myanmar....
Thanks, I'll check these out when I get a chance. Out of that list I would think UAE or Venezuela would be the safest? Those two are powder kegs with lit fuses. You need non-confiscatory political stability and citizens that understand how to civilization. Fiji/Seychelles are tiny, isolated paper statelets with backward/primitive natives. That limits the list to Uruguay, with Laos and Myanmar tied for a very distant second place. LMK if you need help down there. I love Tannat! Thanks for pointing that out just checked. Uruguay http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol2/239113.htm Uruguay is considering amending its legislation to allow asset seizure without a conviction. Uruguay ... continue working with covered non-financial entities, and improve the management of seized assets and funds I'll check the others later. Maybe host mirrored exchange frontend with backend residing on IP2? Well I can tell you Uruguay has the most relaxed marijuana laws in the world. Meaning they really have no criminalization for selling or cultivating. I don't mean little amounts I mean the sky is the limit. Uruguay never misses a chance to give Team America World Police the middle finger. That, plus the high degree of local education/civilization, makes it an (or possibly the most) ideal jurisdiction for BTC/XMR start-ups. So what if they're "considering" allowing asset forfeiture? Any .gov can do that. No need to make perfect the enemy of good enough. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
