Please let me know if this explanation is ok, or help me improve it: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ka962/eli5_how_bitcoins_work_mining_them_and_spending/You and I both have a large sheet of paper. Both of our papers have two lines, reading:
Account 1: 5 bitcoins
Account 2: 2 bitcoins
You are account 2, I am account 1. Both of us also have a secret signature that we can verify to be authentic, but can't actually see what it is (this is public/private key cryptography, and is beyond 5 year olds) Let's say I want to send you 2 bitcoins. To do that, I take out a scrap of paper, and write
Transfer 2 Bitcoin from Account 1 to Account 2
--- Signed, Account 1's Secret Signature.
Then I write the following to the first big sheet of paper
Account 1: -2 Bitcoin
Account 2: +2 Bitcoin
And pass that scrap of paper to you, and everyone else using bitcoins. When you get that scrap of paper, you look at your own sheet to see if I have the 2 bitcoins to transfer from Account 1 to Account 2, check that the signature that was used to sign that note is really valid (matches Account 1) and if yes, modify your paper in the same way as mine. Owning that secret signature is what enables you to spend bitcoins, so me owning the secret signature for Account 1, and you owning the secret signature for Account 2, allows us to spend money from our accounts. In the end, the balance of each account is the beginning balance, plus all the changes we have added on later (so, 5-2=3 for Account 1, and 2+2=4 for Account 2).
Now, let's say I write a message asking to transfer 9 bitcoins from Account 1 to Account 2, and pass that message on to you. When you get it, you will check your sheet, and see that Account 1 doesn't have 9 bitcoins. Likewise, let's say that I send you a message saying I want to transfer 2 bitcoins from Account 5 to Account 2. Even if the secret signature for Account 5 is valid, when you look at your sheet, you'll see that Account 5 doesn't even exist. This is basically how Bitcoin works, and what prevent someone from creating counterfeit bitcoins, or just creating them out of thin air.
Now, regarding mining, basically, instead of you doing the work of writing those changes to the big sheet, you are delegating someone else to do it. You still look at the sheet to verify that accounts have the money they say they do, and you verify that the signatures are correct, but what Bitcoin miners do is they actually thoroughly verify the transfer messages, write that information down on the sheet, and then generate an EXTREMELY complicated and nearly impossible to forge signature to sign off on all changes to the paper. It's as if they take each completed sheet full of these transactions, and stick it into a glass safe, where everyone can look at the paper, but no one can alter or mess with it. This keeps others from going back and deleting old transfers, or fudging with the numbers in any way, so, that, for instance, I can't send you 2 bitcoins, and then go back, delete that transaction, and try to send you those 2 bitcoins again (double-spending). For the work of verifying and securing the papers, miners get to write a new account on the piece of paper with 25 new bitcoins in it, which from then on belongs to them. That's the only way a system allows for new bitcoins to be added to the sheets, and how Bitcoin gets distributed in the community.
|
|
|
|
What? Why can't the change address simply be the paper wallet itself? Plus isn't this how Android Bitcoin Wallet works already, sending from it's main address, and sending all change right back to the same main address?
The app doesn't know you imported a key from a paper wallet. Most wallets will not replace keys but add to them. Hence the problem. So, then, what are the risks with Mycelium that people should be worried about? Is there a change that, when you tell it to spend from a paper wallet, that it can create an address it doesn't own private keys to to send change to? I'm having trouble getting this, as I thought the sending and receiving change was typically straightforward... P.S. sorry for pestering you, I just want to make sure I understand this right. |
|
|
|
Wow! Very good to know that we have someone on here with a good radio/speaking voice! Mine sounds too creepy  |
|
|
|
Walmart is succesful because they are cheap. And while their supply system contributes to that the main reason is that they pay very low wages. So low that many of their employees are on food stamps. Effectively they get cheap government subsidized workers That's another side of entitlement mentality.
Nah, that's the popular media reason for it. They are cheap first and foremost because of their supply system (their warehouses are fully automated, working like network hubs, routing packages from truck bay to truck bay, with trucks working like network cables to deliver the packages over roads). Low wages is a minor part of it, and other more expensive stores, including Target, as just as guilty of it. But, of course, if all you've done is go to he store and shop there, you would conclude that it's just the wages. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah, almost forgot:  |
|
|
|
Arguably Micky D's is a manufacturing management company. They run production lines in mass.
If yo were to ask them, they would tell you that they are a real estate company. Buying and owning the best real estate is priority one, and the stores will make money themselves |
|
|
|
|
*bump* Coin still available. Please comment here with offers
|
|
|
|
I created this thread to have a discussion about the topic. You have instead insisted on replacing the topic of the thread with your own topic.
That may in part have been my fault, too. Your point is that striking for higher wages was a bad use of their time, he pointed out that higher wages are possible with the In-n-Out example, and I *tried* to point out that In-n-Out has a severe lack of employment opportunities, due to their business model being much more limited than McDonald's. So, i.e. I was trying to say that those striking workers should be glad they have someone around to hire and pay them in the first place, but it all kind of went downhill from there. |
|
|
|
Your statement depends on what the definition of "is" is.
And outsourcing != R&D.
In case you missed some of the history about their internal workings, they actually have someone working with them who designs CPUs and circuit boards. Also, outsourcing does = R&D, if you pay for and manage it. That's how R&D is done nowadays - it's outsourced to engineers in India and Russia |
|
|
|
Everything that needs to be known is plain as day:
1. Polls show people like In-n-Out better.
2. Their food is fresher (actually fresh).
3. Their prices are competitive, even better.
4. Their service is great.
5. Their wages are publicized.
6. They're busy as hell. Go to one.
7. They're doing very well.
So the only thing that's left to be known is, why is McDonald's all over the world, making hundreds of millions of dollars, and In-n-Out is an obscure thing in a few states, making a fraction of that? You know, the most important question of all.Why is that the most important question of all? Perhaps a more important question: how does In-n-Out always win the hamburger polls with ease vs. McDonald's, manage to pay their employees significantly more, and yet charge no more, sometimes less, for an equivalently sized meal? No, I think the most important question is, why is McDonalds able to, and *IS* hiring a hell of a lot more employees than In-n-Out. You know, if we were to stick at least somewhat to the OP. |
|
|
|
Everything that needs to be known is plain as day:
1. Polls show people like In-n-Out better.
2. Their food is fresher (actually fresh).
3. Their prices are competitive, even better.
4. Their service is great.
5. Their wages are publicized.
6. They're busy as hell. Go to one.
7. They're doing very well.
So the only thing that's left to be known is, why is McDonald's all over the world, making hundreds of millions of dollars, and In-n-Out is an obscure thing in a few states, making a fraction of that? You know, the most important question of all.I mean, SURELY if all those things were the most important things that need to be known about the success of these businesses, then In-n-Out would have restaurants all over the country, hiring millions of employees for "decent" wages, while McDonald's would be the obscure chain that's only in a few states, right? |
|
|
|
62.4% of people are armchair lawyers, dolling out justice in their underwear! And obviously whatever their opinion is is the law.  Now see we have differing opinions about what exactly R&D is. You seem to believe R&D means "hire some company to craft something for you". I don't believe they have actually spent any money on actual "research" or "development". Perhaps I am mistaken.
Did they pull the ASICs schematics, and motherboard designs out of their asses? Where did they find those really nice, solid aluminum cases? And who went all around the world negotiating contracts with companies to make all these things for them? Did they found some hapless volunteer? |
|
|
|
I have worked at neither. I have patronized both, obviously.
Ah, so you claim to know the business structure of both companies just because you have bought their products? Hard to believe, considering you have shown time and again that you don't really understand or think things through when it comes to business. And if latter, can you tell why is Walmart has such an enormous competitive advantage over every other store, just from your experience shopping there?
I'm not really interested in googling Walmart. Anyway, I prefer Target - it's a much cleaner and nicer shopping experience. I didn't say google it. You claimed to understand what McDonalds and In-n-Out businesses do just because you shopped there. I'm sure you shopped at WalMart once before, too. So it should have been pretty obvious to you, based on your shopping experience, that the only reason WalMart is so successful is because WalMart invented a completely new, computerized, and automated supply chain system the likes of which the world has never seen before, and still can't duplicate. |
|
|
|
So many questions about what we are doing... Are you a government plant trying to find out our secret revolutionary plans?  |
|
|
|
First, the majority of CEOs are cronies, who get their enormous salaries due to their ability to manipulate politicians into creating legislation that is favorable to their specific enterprise while increasing the regulation on their competition.
Sounds like an extremely valuable and useful skill that any corp would pay top dollar for. Though the problem here isn't with CEOs working within the system in an attempt to do their job, which is to make a profit. The problem is the politicians being able to give out such legislation and favors. This is pandemic, and our admiration ought to be reserved for the true captains of industry, who create new things that make our lives better.
I'm having a hard time coming up with names of CEOs who are not those things. Most I know came from lower level positions working their way up, or founded companies themselves. What's your opinion of Jeff Bezzos, who built his company from scratch, and is not trying to get legislation that would force sales tax on internet sales? Also, why should be have admiration for CEOs in the first place? Most of them never ask for it, yet are forced to be raised in the public eye, and then vilified for it :/ Second, you can take a risk or you can negotiate a golden parachute that will pay out regardless of job performance, not both. I can't blame someone for not taking a risk, but I will not talk up how brave and ballsy it is for someone to take a job where they will get millions of dollars if they screw it up so badly that they are fired in the first six months.
Why not both? Why can't someone take a risk, while having some insurance at the same time? There's nothing wrong with it. And why would you admire someone taking on an extremely risky venture without taking all possible precautions? I would think a person like that would be thought of as a careless idiot, not an admirable expert at negotiating their field. And, again, why would you talk about how someone is brave for doing (or attempting to do) their job? You don't talk about how brave a janitor is, so why a CEO? but if you're playing with other people's money and have nothing to lose you ain't no entrepreneur; you're an employee.
Uh, CEOs are't entrepreneurs, they are employees. They don't even own the company they work for (typically). It's why they can get fired. And they do have stuff to lose. Seriously, is losing your job, with your performance and life becoming public, and with greatly decreased prospects of getting another job, and only a much smaller severance "consolation prize" no big deal for you? (pretend we are not talking about millions before you consider this one) …and I haven't had enough (or any) sleep and I'm likely to be a bit cranky myself.
An oft problem on forums of this sort, one I am often guilty of as well  |
|
|
|
Really? Wait, do you mean just in front of the counter? Or behind the counter and at their business office? did before?)
As I said, I have both perspectives. You don't. Should I take that as your admission that you have worked in fast food at both McDonald's and In-n-Out burger? Or are you saying "both" as in a perspective of "both" restaurants just from your experience shopping there? And if latter, can you tell why is Walmart has such an enormous competitive advantage over every other store, just from your experience shopping there? |
|
|
|
I've been in McDonald's many times - no doubt hundreds and hundreds of times. Same with In-n-Out. Experiencing both gives one both perspective. I have both perspectives. You don't.
Really? Wait, do you mean just in front of the counter? Or behind the counter and at their business office? If the former, that's an incredible skill. I, for instance, would never be able to figure out a company's business structure just by shopping in their stores. (One way to test your skill: Why is Walmart kicking everyone else's butt? What does it do that no one else did before?) P.S. I worked there, and I visit there often (especially when I go on long roadtrips), and I'm not exactly young, but I doubt I've been there a hundred times, let alone two hundred. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of Burger King, and I know I haven't been to their chain more than maybe 20 times in my lifetime. So, your claim is a bit weird. Especially considering that, by your own admission, you paid hundreds of times for overprices crappy burgers, when you had a much better and cheaper alternative. |
|
|
|
So, instead of thinking, "Holy crap! They still get to keep $15mil! I could do so much with that in my own life style/situation!" think "Where would I be if my salary was cut in half, and I had a very public bad record in my resume that was published in a bunch of newspapers?"
No, if I do a shitty job, I get my salary cut by 100%. You're not going to make me cry over someone getting their salary cut 50% WHEN THEY GET FIRED. What planet are you writing from? Sorry, you're right, I messed up. I meant "get fired, have fairly small severance pay compared to their salary, and have their poor job record in the public, possibly preventing them from getting another job." One job I worked at laid me off, and the severance package was 6 month's pay. But it wasn't a cut in salary, you're right. |
|
|
|
Rassah,
Sounds like you really know your stuff about McDonald's. No doubt with their excellent business model and progressive menu, it shouldn't be an issue for them to change their starting pay to well above minimum wage like In-n-Out. At least we both now know that their menu prices won't undergo a rise in price if ever they had to pay their employees more. Kudos to you for pointing this out and rendering the joint's opinion even more suspect, as he was claiming fast food businesses just wouldn't be able to afford it.
I worked at McDonald's Corp for a while, and had the chance to see visit their central office and see how they operate from the inside. And how the hell do you come to that conclusion after numerous questions from myself and others of "Why should McDonald's deny someone a job if they need it more and are willing to charge less for their labor?" How does In-n-Out determine whom to give a job to? I can't imagine burger flipping has a lot of qualifications. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
