I think we will blow through $7.20 this time. $8 is coming tonight or sunday.
OBV chart says theres not enough money for this yet.  Elaborate please ? A lot of the money is not visible..  Today (hourly) obv value is about 370, and 6th jan (when we had tits in the price chart) hourly OBV value was about 450 and we still couldnt break $7.2. Seems to me that we need more money in the system to go higher, but maybe im wrong. I thought OBV was a reactionary measurement? as in, its only accurate after things happen? Please correct me if Im wrong, Im all ears He is pointing out that a higher OBV then did not accomplish $7.2, so a lower OBV now will not do it either. |
|
|
|
My payment address was 1DuodGk73VDU4WyJtUmwuu76iXCdtVcCpt, and email was the one in my profile.
Great sent along let me know when received! Got it now. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
My payment address was 1DuodGk73VDU4WyJtUmwuu76iXCdtVcCpt, and email was the one in my profile.
|
|
|
|
|
I also have not recieved payment. I opened the email a couple times already, but there is no sign of payment.
|
|
|
|
You might share the IP range of an user that has constantly tried MySQL injections on the page.. i have narrowed the banned range, hope it works now again. Thanks, it works now. |
|
|
|
|
2. excellence
(thanks, by the way)
|
|
|
|
7) time? (2 minutes have passed) |
|
|
|
I think this is a non-issue until we reach a point in time where the block reward is less than what we deem required to secure the network at an acceptable level. Which means, acceptable network security should be determined.
Is the Bitcoin network "secure" enough for everyone at 8 TH/s? Is it overly secure or under secured?
We pretty much bottomed out at about 8 TH/s when the price of BTC was hovering around $2.50. So, one can extrapolate that in order to maintain that same level of hashing power when we reach 25 BTC block rewards, the price needs to double. If the price is at $2.50 when block rewards hit 25 BTC, then we will likely drop to 5 TH/s, give or take (some more efficient miners may stay in the game to an even lower price point, so it wouldn't be directly halved). So, is 5 TH/s acceptable to secure a $50M mini-economy?
Basically, a bottom-line "security" level needs to be determined. It might be a linear or non-linear equation, given that computing power will increase year after year, thus it would be easier and easier for a potential attacker to obtain terahashes of power to stage an attack. It might also be based on price, given that an attacker would have more incentive to stage an attack if the coins were more valuable. But until we know how much computing power is actually necessary to secure the currency given a certain price and certain availability of computing power, we can't really determine how much transaction fees *should* be.
The good thing is, we have plenty of time to figure this out, because the network is vastly oversecured already (and with the recent price increase, will be further secured in the coming months).
I suppose someone needs to think hard from a criminal perspective, about how a potential hijack of the blockchain would be profitable. Obviously, the price per BTC would tank directly after such an attack, so whatever was done would have to be done quickly, be untraceable, and be worth more than the cost of setting up such an attack.
I wrote a BIP on fees and how they could improve security a while back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51778.0. Unfortunately, it seemed like there were many unresolvable security flaws in it. I believe the concept of fee stablization is necessary to ensure security in event of attack. |
|
|
|
|
The percentages are calculated by your posts in that board divided by the total posts in that board. Theymos's most active French subforum is likely due to the low volume of that subforum. In other words, the measurement is of your importance in that particular subboard.
|
|
|
|
|
As the thread is now renamed, I believe this post is now on-topic.
The Bitcointalk forums were not designed to overcome censorship. To maintain a level of civility, I believe that there are scenarios where misbehaving users, for example Atlas, are banned from talking. However, the level of free speech maintained varies greatly between moderators. It can be concluded that the forum does not have a standard censorship level.
While I am not suggesting a "rate a mod" system, the input of forum users should be taken into account. A mod which receives a large amount of critisism should be given a warning by the higher mods or administrators to act more in line with the moderating standard. Some mods, which will not be named, have suffered a greater amount of controversy than other mods. It is my belief that these mods should be instructed by the higher mods.
To further increase the utility of such a solution, the forum should gain a more detailed "rules" document. Currently, one stickied post in fact states that the forum's only rule is to act in best judgement. This rule is ambuigious and insufficiently detailed. With the addition of a standard, both moderators and users would be able to act better in their best judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
So Bitcoin for 3 years and already there are crusades. That's just great.
|
|
|
|
Heh. Time to resurrect this thread?
Wow. The major correction finally came - there goes my bubble theory. I guess it's good I didn't invest too much into the bubble buildup. |
|
|
|
Until it is proven that the supposedly tried-and-true bitcoin code can actually work and survive with only the absolute minimum changes needed to form a separate blockchain, sich as default port and connect handshake, proposing revolutionary changes, innovations, "advancements" seems possibly premature.
It actually is starting to look as if bitcoin itself is fundamentally flawed, since it is not itself at all immune to exactly the kinds of overly rich, even if on other people's resources, religious fanatics that societies that try to use currency in lieu of, and possibly even as an attempt to ameliorate or avoid, violence, warfare, dictatorship and so on, seem so good at aquiring as enemies. How hard would it be for any other Ayatollah to do to bitcoin what the bitcoin Ayatollah's are able to do even to chains that are pretty much identical do bitcoin itself?
-MarkM-
This is why we abandoned SC1 (mostly bitcoin code) and rewrote it to fix most of the glaring holes (SC2). You are right that Bitcoin is just as vulnerable, it's just a matter of scale. Luke-Jr and his cronies can take down small chains right now, guys with a few million can do it to Bitcoin if they wanted. SolidCoin is the only secure cryptocurrency available right now. Coinhunter, advertising in the Bitcoin community has done little to help your cause. It is the divide between ideology that is killing Solidcoin now. Imagine advertising atheism in a church, or socialism in the US congress. Solidcoin would be done much good if instead you chose to listen and take the suggestions of Solidcoin community members, who have all pushed for more openness, to heart. Whatever benifits Solidcoin offers are overshadowed by the problems with Solidcoin's internal community right now. Deal with civil unrest before invading other territories. |
|
|
|
As discussed in the new thread on vanity address outsourcing the vanity addresses that start with 3 will be much easier (less computation) to create. This will lead to the possibility of longer vanity addresses for those that start with 3.
This does not mean generating vanity addresses starting with "3" with this generator is useful in any way. |
|
|
|
|
There remains a MOVED: MtGox in here please on the main forum. MtGox will be attracted to that topic, then come here.
Additionally, the MtGox support constantly searches "MtGox" on the bitcointalk.org forums as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
