So you sell them mid range accounts which they build up to sell off as high ranking member accounts. What legitimate reason do people have for buying those high ranking accounts?

Wenn der Teufel Menschen in Verwirrung bringen will, bedient er sich dazu der Idealisten. Machiavelli

yeeeeh you got it !!!


you ALWAYS risk to invest in a shitcoin



all in all he wanted to say, that he is willing to add features on user requests, he even found solutions to your idea.
The STAKINGENGINE though is a own development from stratch that outperformed any other candidate around.
You will be VERY gradeful in case we won't change that!  

have fun
Matthias  


.

Is that not a good thing though?
Should the votes of 100 people which hold next to no BTC be worth more than 99 people that hold a lot of BTC?

Buddy, whenever someone will tries to sign in to my gmail account. I will receive the verification call everytime on my Mobile number which is owned by me only. If the hacker don't have my mobile phone, how he will get the verification code and will enter to my account ? its not possible.

POS never made any sense to me and does not now.  I was implying that it would be relatively straightforward to change the POW algo from sha256 to other things, and that could (relatively) easily happen if miners acted in a manner which was to dickish.

I would like to see rewards base on 'trasfer node path'.  That is, a unique and valuable 'path' of verification would be weighted in reward, acceptance, or both.  Some CPU-friendly per-verification-node pre-mining and/or optimization might be worthwhile both as a means of enhancing efficiency and verifying the distributed nature of the 'transfer path'.

TPM-like technology got Todd, Hearn, and myself sporting tech boners some years ago.  The reason it had that impact on me is that it might be a way to enhance the credibility of a unique verifying transfer node.  That is to say, it would be cheap and easy enough to obtain one (envision a thumb-drive miner form factor) but difficult enough to discourage well funded attackers from trying to flood the network in sybil mode.  Todd's 'scratch off' power-on key generation initialization makes the idea really workable.  I would envision 'black listing' of mis-behaving devices as an aspect of the transfer network.  So, say, a node were not verifying transactions (a current problem) the device would be obsolete and the operator would lose their $3.00 investment and ranking in the network matrix.

As I said, the technology needed to get a sustainable system which fosters good geo-political distribution is not trivial.  But it very well could be worth doing and it might be the case that a solution which gets it right may be the one which eventually bubbles to the top of the heap.

I'll maybe get back to some of your other points later (since you don't seem to be a total shill), but I better get something useful done today.

There were complaints some low buy orders weren't filled during crashes. I never found out if all their affected customers were compensated for those problems. Some customers could have lost out on the chance of buying at the bottom, and Bitfinex could have brought those coins and dumped them at the top for a healthy profit. Those profits could help to pay for the coins they lost during the hack.

Folks have spoken with their money. Its share of daily turnover is way down. Like plenty of other places they seem to try to address problems on the fly. They'd be far better off taking some time out to get something that simply works. I wonder how messy their code is.

I think it's the other way around. They've done rather nicely screwing the odd leveraged customer.

An artificial constraint can't be the basis for organic fee pressure.  Bitcoin does have it's network effect / first mover advantage, but the currency has a head start, not a monopoly.  People will and do pay a slight premium for access to Bitcoin's stability, liquidity and security, but any attempt to overcharge and people will take their business elsewhere, to other cryptos waiting in the wings.

Organic fee pressure would exist on the basis of the increased block orphan risk with each added tx.  In the long run, if those fees are not sufficient to pay for adequate security, I would expect miners to form a cartel to enforce some minimum fees.  I could understand a cartel seeming like an artificial constraint as well, and in some senses it would be one; though having a different basis than a software hard-limit would give the nature of the constraint different properties.  For instance, a mining cartel would be able to adjust their fee policy in real time if they so desired.

I feel that the POW aspect of Bitcoin is a total mess which might be impossible to recover from.  So yes, I realize this and agree, but my thesis about it is the opposite of yours.

I am hardly going to shed any tears if the total reward for mining blocks is insufficient to support a large datacenter deployment even if it found every block.  That reality is obviously on the horizon for anyone who shelled out the money needed to mine competitively.  As I've said many times, I anticipate that they will have to monetize other aspects of the network which they, unlike smaller players, will ultimately be well positioned to do.  At that point Bitcoin as a system has no real interest to me since it will be more like VISA and PayPal than like original Bitcoin.

A more ideal design would be that a reward is more available and more generous to infrastructure providers who are demonstrably decentralized, and the more decentralized, the more generous the reward.  A block reward which would barely interest a large consolidated miner would be a giant win for a decentralized independent participant.  So, it is not the end of the world to me if rewards in monetary terms shrunk considerably with what is realized today.  The 'grow or die' philosophy that Silicon Valley takes as a bedrock truth is unimpressive to me and always has been.

Not only is a demonstrably decentralized infrastructure network difficult to do technically, but it would be fairly challenging to get from where we are now with POW to where I think we need to be for a healthy and enduring system.  The only realistic way I see it happening is for a hostile blockchain fork (a-la XT) to occur and a trusted group (namely the blockstream guys) to take the opportunity to fix the POW issues once and for all.  I doubt that there will ever be another point in time where there is the same aggregation of capable and trusted technical participants than we have at this moment under the Blockstream banner.

---

Lastly, I'll point out again that if the average transaction was, say, $10,000 equiv, a 0.5% transaction fee would net a block winner something like $200,000.  If half of it were distributed among those providing transfer infrastructure (non-mining validating nodes) and half were available to the block winner, that is enough to keep small-timers interested and playing at various levels.

Most of my real work with Bitcoin has been transfers of value in this range, and if the native blockchain were used for nightly balancing operations between off-chain (and/or sidechain) providers the $10,000 figure might be low-ball.  The actually coffee purchasers doing transactions on the sidechain (for instance) would still be paying a tiny fee (and probably none for branded sidechains) and the reward to the native Bitcoin infrastructure supports would still be generous at a low transaction rate.

One more advantage in using Bitcoin as a high value system is that those making such transactions are usually in no big hurry.  There is then no need to try to convert Bitcoin from a batch system to a real-time system.  A batch system is vastly easier to secure against attack, and particularly if those using it in this use-case are doing so with the appropriate expectations about system function.

I cannot sign my old btc address which I lost recently.

Buddy ,  my email account cannot be hacked in anyway. Bcoz,  2nd factor  authentication is activated on it. If I gave you my email account login details too , you need my mobile phone and mobile number to use the verification code to get my account access.

I will stop using it. I have a family to think of and no criminal record. I doubt if it will happen in my country, because we have a vibrant Bitcoin economy and a Bitcoin friendly government. I am not saying it will not happen, but the government is getting a lot of extra TAX from this, so they are happy.

I know the Russians and China and Australia are clamping down on Bitcoin use now, so it might happen to them. Australia even banned Chris Brown from entering their country.  

hmm... cryptocurrency is a digital money online.
so how can be having money online will be a crime?
does it mean that having money in my paypal,webmoney,skrill etc.
is also a crime? its non sense.
well if using bitcoin really become a crime.
it will be a disaster because a lot of people will argue about it.
this will be a world wide rally..

In a decentralized environment, voting would be the only option like democratic country has election to select their leaders. Like that to solve blocksize problem we need to go with what majority of the people vote for. This is in belief of majority of people would take a right one.