Besides I mentioned earlier. If you are not happy with your security service provider (Govt) why should you have to move hundreds or thousands of miles, give up your job, your local community etc and go into an uncertain situation when you could have a situation where it is as simple as changing your telephone provider or ISP? It just doesn't make any sense.
I talk about what already works now if you are not happy with the state you happen to live in. You, instead, are trying to sell a pig in a poke, something which is simply not here today and probably will never be. The point is that you and I should not support the use of force to compel people to have just one government in an area. It's as immoral for governments to claim a monopoly in an area over defense and law and order as it is for the mafia to have territory and force everyone within it to pay protection money. When your neighbor says he wants to secede, you shouldn't be among the ones opposing him. Nor should you reply by saying it is impractical. He has that right, and it should be respected. Nor should you reply by telling him he'll have to move. That's just wrong - he and everybody else should have the right to secede, collaborate together to form new governments (rights-protecting institutions), or whatever they want, as long as they are not violating anyone else's rights. Though I didn't expect that you would like this alternative, which was pretty clear right from the start The problem with your alternative is that it's immoral to make that the only choice. |
|
|
|
Litecoin offers MUCH faster transaction times. No, it doesn't. Faster block times do not equate to faster confirmations. To decide if a transaction is "confirmed," you need to analyze the difficulty of a double spend attack at each block height. Faster blocks are accomplished by having lower difficulty - so you need more blocks to get an equivalent chance of protection against double spend. Haha sure I understand what you're saying, but if you were to send a litecoin to me right this instant, I would receive it faster than if you were to send me a bitcoin. I was more making a point to the OP What? I have no idea what you are talking about. Transactions are near instantaneous in both Bitcoin and Litecoin. Why would you receive a Litecoin transaction faster than Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Litecoin offers MUCH faster transaction times. No, it doesn't. Faster block times do not equate to faster confirmations. To decide if a transaction is "confirmed," you need to analyze the difficulty of a double spend attack at each block height. Faster blocks are accomplished by having lower difficulty - so you need more blocks to get an equivalent chance of protection against double spend. |
|
|
|
Who doesn't want to know or have a better idea of how many coins are "alive"? /raises hand I can't see a benefit to this scheme. |
|
|
|
didn't mean to make it sound like I said u were callin me a scammer so sorry. No problem - I'm not offended. I just see lots of interesting claims made on these loan threads, and since I happened to click on this one, I wanted to interject. I probably shouldn't have. But like I said, I never said I can prove repayment even though I would repay... what I have been saying is I can prove that its easily repaid which are two different things.
Okay, I think I understand now - proof of ability to repay. From your initial wording, I got the wrong idea. |
|
|
|
Why don't you just ask for a 2k bank loan, probably easier than this, not assuming your particularly shady.
I respect what you said and didn't take it wrong, I have considered that and not to make matters worse which it might for some considering but my credits not so hot right now. Edit: I can prove though via PM that the loan will be easily rapaid on time. I've come to think of you as a friend and fellow bitminter, so I clicked on this thread when I noticed your name. But I have to point out that nobody can prove they will repay a loan. What I keep saying is I can prove its easily repaid... if no one wants to believe me or take a chance on an honest person then w/e, I'm at least trying to offer assurance that no scammer ever would but hey. If some of u wana think of me as a scammer without knowin me then more power to u. I'm not calling you a scammer. I am just saying that it is impossible to prove what you are saying you can prove. Several months back TangibleCryptography made a big post here looking for BTC loans. They gave a lot of evidence to show themselves trustworthy and reliable. I find them to be trustworthy and reliable. They still can't prove they will pay back a loan. Nobody can do that. |
|
|
|
Why don't you just ask for a 2k bank loan, probably easier than this, not assuming your particularly shady.
I respect what you said and didn't take it wrong, I have considered that and not to make matters worse which it might for some considering but my credits not so hot right now. Edit: I can prove though via PM that the loan will be easily rapaid on time. I've come to think of you as a friend and fellow bitminter, so I clicked on this thread when I noticed your name. But I have to point out that nobody can prove they will repay a loan. |
|
|
|
Litecoin was the first attempt at speeding up the transaction speed on the massive blockchain of BTC and avoid the ASIC Arms Race in mining but that may change with the advent of Script ASIC boards ...
Except Litecoin was not the first attempt at either of those. Litecoin wasn't trying to avoid ASICs. It was trying to avoid GPUs. And it wasn't the first! It was at least the third! And faster block speeds don't speed up confirmation times. If you speed up the blocks, you simply need more blocks to confirm. There's nothing magic about "6" blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Okay, I went and learned some history.
Tenebrix was launched to be GPU-unfriendly, using Scrypt proof of work instead of SHA256. (The funny thing is that today, we think Scrypt coins are great because you can use your GPUs on them - we think of them as ASIC-unfriendly. How we forget.)
Tenebrix had a premine of about 7.7 million coins!
In response to this, Fairbrix was launched - a fork of the Tenebrix source, with a new ledger that had "only" a hundred blocks premined. LOL! I guess that was considered acceptable in those days.
But the really striking thing I discovered was that the Fairbrix developer was coblee. That's the original developer that released Litecoin. (And I believe his brother runs BTCChina, which you might have heard of. Or maybe I am confused.)
So apparently for some reason, Fairbrix didn't work out, and coblee went on to create Litecoin. I would imagine the 100 block premine had something to do with it, but I'll bet I'm wrong, since it appears that people thought that the 100 block premine was nothing, back then.
|
|
|
|
The only altcoins I can see that could serve a genuine purpose, or offer something different to Bitcoin would be Litecoin and Peercoin, and potentially primecoin. Why Litecoin? When introduced, it offered nothing to the cryptocurrency world that had not been done before. (My point is, look how Litecoin has succeeded, even though it was just a repeat of what had been done before. Think about what that could mean for the current coins out there now.) It wasn't the first scryptcoin? (I really don't know) Correct, it was not the first. Unfortunately I've lost my reference to what came before that used Scrypt, but I read it here on this forum. Really our time horizons are extremely short, for most of us in this community: we do not know what came before and very quickly adjust to new status quos and start to think things have always been this way. The interesting thing is that Litecoin succeeded where others before it did not. It would be a mistake to assume that could not happen again. I believe Tenebrix is the first Scrypt coin you were thinking of. Thanks - you're right! Tenebrix - created to use up all those spare CPU cycles while your GPU cycles are mining for Bitcoins: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45667.0Anyone have any speculation as to why Litecoin succeeded and Tenebrix did not? |
|
|
|
I can't get the Vircurex API to work any more. I have tried multiple programming languages including Java, Perl, and JavaScript, as well as trying to access directly with openssl. There seem to be certificate errors causing the problems, or else problems because of CloudFlare.
The only way I can access the API is to craft a URL and put it into my browser, then look for the info I want. Which obviously defeats the purpose of having an API.
Any suggestions? What are other people using?
I believe the API is currently down for maintenance, which one assumes is the issuing you're experiencing. Cheers. No, it works fine from my browser. I just can't write programs to use it that way. For example, I can access the following link in my browser, but I can't seem to write a program in any language that can successfully access this link so I can parse and use the data: https://vircurex.com/api/orderbook.json?base=BTC&alt=USDThe create_order API method was down for awhile earlier today, but the latest news says it's back up. |
|
|
|
|
I can't get the Vircurex API to work any more. I have tried multiple programming languages including Java, Perl, and JavaScript, as well as trying to access directly with openssl. There seem to be certificate errors causing the problems, or else problems because of CloudFlare.
The only way I can access the API is to craft a URL and put it into my browser, then look for the info I want. Which obviously defeats the purpose of having an API.
Any suggestions? What are other people using?
|
|
|
|
Issuance:
This part is going to get a lot of my fellow libertarians in a tizzy but please bear with me until i finish the argument. The block reward for miners would never be lowered, it would be a constant amount for ever. This would not lead to endless inflation i promise. You have to remember that each new issuance would represent a smaller rate of inflation of the over all money supply than the previous issuance. So for example the second block doubles the money supply, but the third only increases it by 1/3 and the fourth by only 1/4. This is much less inflationary than a scheme that, for example, increases the money supply at a rate of 1% of outstanding issuance. Furthermore at some point in the future an equilibrium would be reached where the marginal value of a unit of currency would be less than the marginal value of taking the necessary precautions to secure it from loss. In other words, at some point in the future, the amount of currency lost due to carelessness would match almost 1 for 1 the rate of new currency being issued. I'm late to this thread, but I wanted to comment that this is a good insight. It's funny the thing that originally attracted me to Bitcoin was the finite supply. Now I don't see that as being as big of an issue due to the phenomenon you are describing here. It's analogous to slowly increasing the gold supply (through mining, nuclear transmutation, space exploration and mining, etc.) - not enough to destabilize the currency. I was reviewing part of the original Bitcoin whitepaper this morning and noticed that Satoshi actually referred to each block as generating "a coin." That would've been an interesting way for things to run: 1 BTC generated every 10 minutes, indefinitely. |
|
|
|
The only altcoins I can see that could serve a genuine purpose, or offer something different to Bitcoin would be Litecoin and Peercoin, and potentially primecoin. Why Litecoin? When introduced, it offered nothing to the cryptocurrency world that had not been done before. (My point is, look how Litecoin has succeeded, even though it was just a repeat of what had been done before. Think about what that could mean for the current coins out there now.) It wasn't the first scryptcoin? (I really don't know) Correct, it was not the first. Unfortunately I've lost my reference to what came before that used Scrypt, but I read it here on this forum. Really our time horizons are extremely short, for most of us in this community: we do not know what came before and very quickly adjust to new status quos and start to think things have always been this way. The interesting thing is that Litecoin succeeded where others before it did not. It would be a mistake to assume that could not happen again. |
|
|
|
Rewording the question a little bit:
Are crypto-currencies so fragile that a single person can destroy them?
I thought about this overnight, and I decided, yes, cryptocurrencies are this fragile, and fontas will destroy them, so you should all sell what you have immediately. Just a helpful tip. |
|
|
|
I think those of you, guys, who deem themselves as anarchists are terribly misusing the term...  Considering what you say here (small isolated settlements, ostracism, communal efforts and all that nonsense) I would rather call you hippies...  Or maybe an anarchist is just an age-worn hippie? Not all anarchists are hippies, but I'm not so sure the reverse is true. For the most part, anarchist support decentralization to it's logical extreme within a social context. I would probably accept the name hippie, but I doubt you'd identify me as such by my appearance. I do use the CND logo a lot - does that count? |
|
|
|
|
Rewording the question a little bit:
Are crypto-currencies so fragile that a single person can destroy them?
|
|
|
|
I was enthousiastic about NXT since it's the newest coin on the market. No, it's not the newest, and even if it were, that would not be a good reason to be enthusiastic about it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
