At the end of the day, only your machine will be able to access the wallet file. using the file on another machine will not work, even with the application. This will cause a problem if your machine was to fail, or if you planned to use the wallet on more than one machine. But there will eventually be measures to protect against this too.
Which is still easily stolen. If the attacker has remote access to the machine via a trojan he can still steal coins in a variety of ways. 1) simply use wallet to transfer them out to an address he owns. 2) grab decrypted keys from memory. 3) decompile the client to determine what hardware specific strings are used to generate the decryption key and decrypt the wallet file. Tip for next time. You might get more interest without stupid claims like "impossible to steal". But wouldnt be able to access the wallet file at all due to the file protection, not to mention as soon as it trys to access the wallet or any of the files, It would get blocked. That is as long as the application service is running. It would be much more work than what is currently required to copy the file, and log the passphrase. Not impossible to steal i guess, but impossible to steal the funds from it Soooooo..... how does it work? if there is no passphrase, how do you spend the coins? how does it prevent the attacks you describe? Your claims imply a grand innovation in computer security! |
|
|
|
tl;dr version, anyone?
Go troll elsewhere, thank you. How is this a troll? Anyway... This was probably one of the most interesting paragraphs: Moving on, the creation of Bitcoins and sale to users potentially amounts to issuing payment instruments. Therefore the question is whether Bitcoins are payment instruments. This means something used in order to initiate an instruction requesting the execution of a payment transaction. A payment transaction means placing, transferring or withdrawing funds. The key definition is funds. This means banknotes and coins, scriptural money, and electronic money. This means that the question is whether Bitcoins are money.
So is bitcoin "legally" money? ans: depends on courts, national and EU. There were a bunch of other regulations that bitcoin might fall under, but it all got a bit too lawyer for me. |
|
|
|
Price stability is not a non-issue, it is a central goal of any monetary system.
The central goal of a monetary system is to provide a measure of value to facilitate trade. What's with this fetish for price stability? Stable against what? Ultimately, all prices are relative and floating against one another. Here's a riddle for you: If corn halves in value relative to cotton, how much money do you print for price stability? This is a total non-issue. |
|
|
|
The only way the economy will grow at a healthy rate is by an increase in business volume.
No. the economy grows from savings and loans, not by consumption. Growth means the economy produces more goods and services than it did before. It can't do that unless it increases it's efficiency, that is: more output for the same input (labor). To increase efficiency a business must invest in new equipment, RND, etc. If a bunch of hoarders suddenly start spending their money, business will experience a temporary spike in sales and the value of money will drop. Afterwards, the economy is no bigger than it was before and businesses will have low stock. To sustain an increased volume a business must improve it's infrastructure. This requires capital. This is a direct argument against your core assumption. |
|
|
|
Hoarders spending money into the economy doesn't grow it. That's just consumption: taking real wealth out and putting currency in, bidding up prices.
To grow the economy, hoarders would need to invest their coins. investment creates or grows new businesses, which is precisely economic growth. The thing is, you can't really loan out bitcoins at the moment, but this is a problem of a lack of infrastructure, which will come with time.
Just holding coins forever doesn't impact the economy, except by lowering prices due to reduced supply of coins in the active economy.
You contradict yourself. Why would hoarders invest their coins and create businesses? It is far more profitable to just sit on their coins and let the economy suffer deflation while sitting pretty on that pile of money. If the price of goods is reduced, I can buy more stuff with my hoard. You are right though, hoarding is bad for society in general. Tax the rich. Your forgetting that investment, if done right, will bring nominal returns. Why sit on money when it can earn interest. If you "buy more stuff with your hoard" then you're no longer hoarding. |
|
|
|
If there is anything that needs a anonymous encrypted payment system it's drugs, and bitcoin fits in that world perfectly
Whether you like it or not it is a thriving economy for bitcoins and pure example of the power of it. bitcoin economy will expand outside of it, don't worry.
On the down low I have a few issues with silk road security wise, some keymaster holds the database and codes in their hand, and due to the nature of the goods that power in 1 persons hand is not good. + Tor is NOT anonymous and you can easily sniff a exit node, every security/goverment agency either has exit nodes black listed and without a doubt it's filled with FBI and special Black Op's people doing all sorts a nasty shit.
Um... dude. The Silk Road is a hidden service. No exit nodes are involved. Also, you can encrypt your info with the sellers public key. |
|
|
|
Strawman  Are you made of straw? If there is a flaw in my logic, please do me the honor of deconstructing it. I think I made a reasonable case for hoarders not hindering development. |
|
|
|
Right, lending...
LOL
That is fiat economy talk where that actually means something. What would a merchant do with a BTC loan? Sell the coins and buy more product stock/resources? Then he'd sit on it.
Why are you talking about merchants? Businesses take loans to improve their infrastructure/efficiency/capacity with the intention of paying if of using the increased productivity that follows. If successful, the economy is more productive than it was before; there is more output for the same input. This is growth. The only way the economy will grow at a healthy rate is by an increase in business volume.
Selling more goods doesn't make the economy any more productive. The input output ratio is still the same. Unless that business saves the extra profit due to increased volume to later invest in equipment upgrades to make their process more efficient. ie. they hoard money then invest it; their input output ratio improves. Just consuming resources doesn't create economic growth. |
|
|
|
John C. Dvorak is notoriously bad at making tech predictions.
He was wrong about the keyboard and he's wrong about this! |
|
|
|
|
Hoarders spending money into the economy doesn't grow it. That's just consumption: taking real wealth out and putting currency in, bidding up prices.
To grow the economy, hoarders would need to invest their coins. investment creates or grows new businesses, which is precisely economic growth. The thing is, you can't really loan out bitcoins at the moment, but this is a problem of a lack of infrastructure, which will come with time.
Just holding coins forever doesn't impact the economy, except by lowering prices due to reduced supply of coins in the active economy.
|
|
|
|
Follow on: and wouldn't the conclusion then be that since price is a valuable indicator, you wouldn't want to artificially mess with it (i.e. to provide artificial stability)...the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that trying to create a stable currency of any kind is folly. It's folly when they try and do it with the USD, and it's folly to try and do it with bitcoin. The first question you have to ask is "stable against what?" ...better off to just have a price index and set your prices using it rather than any currency used for exchange (i.e. sell your widgets for the cost of 2 loaves of bread..or the cost of your input materials + 5%).
I think you just attained economic enlightenment! ;-) free markets work. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking this quote should follow every post immanuel makes I rather drink, cook and bathe exclusively with purified bottled water because it won't be lovingly pumped full of sodium fluoride and heavy metals.[..] I do know that people do not want water full of chemicals none of us asked for nor had any scientific-backing in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
I'm still not convinced.
If a client transmits a new transaction to a bunch of miners, isn't it in the interest of each of those miners to not forward that transaction to other nodes, keeping the fees for himself for when he finally solves a block? Yes, miners have an incentive to be "well-connected", but that's not gonna make their peers forward transactions.
What's worse: the bigger the txfee, the more incentive to not forward the transaction.
Can someone chime in on this please. I feel that none of these responses have adequately addressed the issue. Is there some market based mechanism which will counter this behavior?
|
|
|
|
Very interesting. This seems to correspond exactly with the MBTI ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti) Intuition vs Sensing dichotomy. According to this theory, what you're describing is the "perceiving" function. from wikipedia: Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere."[1]:2 They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory. perceiving function descriptions ( http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.asp) Extraverted Sensing: Acts on concrete data from here and now. Trusts the present, then lets it go. Introverted Sensing: Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use. Extraverted Intuition: Sees possibilities in the external world. Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which can then be shared with others. Introverted Intuition: Looks at consistency of ideas and thoughts with an internal framework. Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand. Most people are sensing types and it's really frustrating trying to explain abstract concepts to them, such as why bitcoin will work. Introverted Sensors won't use bitcoin until it's proven itself as a historically sound system. Extroverted Sensors, unfortunately, won't use bitcoin until everyone else is. it's up to us Intuitives to bootstrap this revolution! |
|
|
|
So far we have determined:
1) Bitcoins anonymous nature is useless as to contest payment evidence of transaction is required.
2) Bitcoin does not prevent monopoly by institutional investors.
1) True. Anonymity increases efficiency only if we assume that there are transactions that would not happen without it (which is the case). Being anonymous means you have to trust the vendor, since you can't prove what you are entitled to if they don't deliver. It's always a trade off. 2) True, but in proper context. Bitcoin supply will never be controlled by a central authority. I believe that this makes it more resistant to monopolization, whatever that might mean (maybe you need to clarify). It will have to be widespread for this to happen though. All Bitcoin will lead to is a deflationary economy in which asset prices continuously drop killing investment.
That's asset prices in bitcoin'killing investment'? Is bitcoin to die in 3 months or are you predicting the complete replacement of all other currencies by bitcoin? Are you really using the hypothetical situation of bitcoin being the only currency in order to argue against it? Bitcoin will still be deflationary when other currencies exist. I don't think you get the contradiction here. Bitcoin is inflationary when it's dying. It is deflationary when it's flourishing. So it needs to flourish to die? This. Because bitcoin has a practically fixed supply, prices can only drop if the economy is growing. so (price) deflation, by definition, implies a growing economy. If no one invests in the bitcoin economy, prices (in bitcoins) will go up. The only problems here are economic fallacies. |
|
|
|
|
This serves as a mis-allocation of resources and will only hurt the economy. If you have money to give away, the best thing you can do with it is provide capital to a business you think is viable thus generating more wealth for society. Giving it to some random stranger is not likely to produce growth.
|
|
|
|
Me rockin a shirt I helped design. I'm an avid Bitcoin miner, hardware enthusiast, and mediocre as hell Starcraft2 player and even worse MW2 player. And yeah I love shopping   Wow! You're that hot and a total computer geek!  |
|
|
|
Thanks for good promotion initiative. But prize money are not so high to really motivate people. Probably, you may try to appeal for donations to support this project  . By the time he has to pay out.. who knows how high 10 BTC may be!? To achieve this, bitcoin will have to be pretty much mainstream. 10BTC will be worth allot! |
|
|
|
|
Couldn't any institution buy all the cards on the first and second hand market? This would drive up the price enticing more sellers (many probably honest miners). They would quickly buy 30,000 cards, albeit at greatly inflated prices?
Think about it. If a 6990 is going for $2000, how many people are just going to cash in their mining rig?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
