|
So lame, denominated in dollars (right?) but not redeemable for cash. It's like denominating accounts in gold and not giving the gold, who would fall for that, oh wait.
|
|
|
|
maybe bitcoin should Patent cryptocurrency? wait a minute who is "bitcoin" ?  There is no "Bitcoin" to patent anything... on the other hand, there is also no "Bitcoin" to be sued for patent infringement. cant they say each individual user of bitcoin is in patent infringement. That would be hilarious. No court would accept such a case. Yeah, make sure you guise don't eat at McYonalds. Their packaging will get you sued. |
|
|
|
I've been to stores many times that wouldn't take plastic because their network was down. I don't think there is an electronic solution for trust here. A Casascius style physical bitcoin could be used and instead of getting change from the vendor, an IOU store receipt can be given that will transmit the change to a customer's address when the system is back online. It's not a perfect solution, but a brick and mortar store is usually trustworthy enough.
If your connection goes down and you don't suspect your customer could cause or expect that to happen then you can just take the tx and broadcast it later. People used to take checks as a matter of course. Trusting in a random one-off situation where the person would have to be ready for just this sort of opportunity is orders of magnitude less risky. Also if you are in the habit of taking the tx and broadcasting it yourself the buyer doesn't even need to know that this is their rare opportunity to scam. |
|
|
|
If the real Satoshi has published a lot of text under his real name, it should be possible to figure out who he's most likely to be using statistical analysis.
I'm surprised nobody has attempted this, a general solution to this problem would have some pretty cool uses in computer forensics.
Once there is a general solution similar (granted more advanced) tech could be used to obfuscate or even spoof the style of someone else. |
|
|
|
If you go to a local shop or any well known shop would you not trust them? And thus you would only need zero confirmation?
There was some suggestion of having premade adresses with "change" in them and the keys to the adresses could be given away with no need to wait for confirmation, or something like that.
Normally, its not the store the buyer does not trust, its the buyer that the store may not trust. After all, the buyer has the store's goods in hand. The seller has a magic number that the buyer gave them. But the practical matter I'm talking about is not trust but convenience. If a seller is told he has to make his buyers wait for so many minutes before a payment can be confirmed, there will never be widespread adoption of bitcoin. So the seller could as others have suggested, offer someone else to take the risk for a small fee in exchange for a guarantee he will be paid and the coffee line can be kept moving. It's not a matter of convenience or time because you can just trust them. Are you worried that this person has mined a block and is just waiting for you to hand his coffee to release the bock and get his 50BTC reward plus his payment for coffee and doughnut back? |
|
|
|
|
If you are mostly a gov money person wanting to buy a few coins in the future you might think you are a bitcoin enthusiast who wants a lower price.
But anyone who has restructured their life around their bitenthusiasm is going to want a higher price.
It's just arrogance to think "Buy Buy Buy because blah blah blah" posts or the opposite will have even one cent of an effect. And if you are long term optimistic on bitcoin growth it makes a lot more sense to build relationships and share ideas here than to try to talk the price down (futily imo) so you can get a tiny extra bit of coins when you cash your next fiat paycheck.
|
|
|
|
The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic. Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply. All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true. We might find that we can agree on some axioms then it would be straightforward logic from there. |
|
|
|
|
Burt PM'd to let me know about this since I'm in his sig. This is what I wrote to Burt:
Ugh, sorry to hear. The only trade we did was very simple. I needed a craigslist ad posted and it wasn't letting me use my phone to verify because it was a prepay phone. Somehow when he did it for me he didn't even need a phone (different IP or area or random I don't know). He said he felt bad taking my money for such an easy job and that'd he'd do another if I needed it.
Only one person, slider1978, asked if he was trustworthy and I replied "It went fine, but it was just a very simple job, no trust required."
|
|
|
|
https://sealswithclubs.org/ they have been around for a while, and they work like a charm. Only poker tho. Cannot vouch for the people behind it, I am just pleased with their services, and enjoy playing dat freeroll!  I can vouch for Seals. :-) |
|
|
|
(Too bad no BiddingPond or else maybe I would auction off the single box =) )
Bitmit.net? |
|
|
|
|
You got outbid I think?
nevermind 250 is the buy now price. Where is your bid?
|
|
|
|
A 5% inflation would allow the largest computer networks (owned by governments and large corporations) to eventually decrease the value of anyone's savings. It would make mining unprofitable and more costly to maintain the network than just printing fiat money.
I'm pretty sure people own a lot more computing power than govs and corps, even if they don't they certainly have more disposable computing power. And thinking they'll just buy more is silly if the premise is that it won't be profitable to mine. I guess a agree that 5% inflation would make mining unprofitable, but only in a roundabout way. A 5% subsidy is way more then the current schedule starting about 12 years in, more subsidy might seem to make mining more profitable. I mean they'd get 5% of all wealth forever, you'd expect 5% of world resources to be dedicated to mining. But that's absurd, but it removes the reason to that gaping value hole will make sure people don't demand coins. |
|
|
|
A lot of "was" in there  Bitcoin was that money people used for three weeks in June right? |
|
|
|
A&M?
Yeah! - With Bitcoin, the money supply can be subdivided indefinitely as market forces demand.
What do you mean by this? I know that it can be divided down to 10 -8 units, but no further. Are you referring to something different? Two possible meanings of that. Off-chain accounting could go smaller, but we can only settle (for now) to 10^-8. The protocol can be modified for extra precision, I don't know how hard of a change that is. So it's fair to say that Bitcoin as we have it has limited precision. |
|
|
|
It's quite common to see goal orientated analysis on the Bitcoin forum. It goes something like this: "Bitcoin is going up, so what reasons can I find for it doing so?" and "Bitcoin didn't go up as it should have, what reasons can I find for it not behaving the way I expected?"
Bitcoinica is the latest in a long string of entities blamed with either failing to pump the price up, or clamping the rise. Bitcoinica has replaced 'the manipulator'. On the up side, The Good Wife failed to produce thousands of eager new bitcoin customers right after they saw the show (despite claims by many this would happen).
You dont understand the internals of whats going on with bitcoinica.. Its a bucket shop, with very little leverage, that makes a sign when they are out of leverage.. This is the equivalent to poker and telling your opponent your hidden cards.. Bitcoinica is a huge player on mtgox, it stands to reason, people with the money are heavily abusing this mirror under the poker table.. The starfish to me is just saying bitcoinica is offering too much leverage if they cant afford to give it to everyone when they ask for it.. And if you actually play with bitcoinica, you'll notice that you cant cash out when its profitable, because they have no funds left.. I good rule would be to have as much in leverage for everyone to go to their max leverage, what ever that is.. If you cant do that, dont offer as much leverage, its getting ridiculous.. I don't use bitcoinica, but that directly contradicts Zhou. He says positions can always be closed, * means you can't borrow to lever. |
|
|
|
so if you got a signed reply from 40-50% of the hashpower -
But how do you know something represents 40-50% of the hashpower? AFAIK, the only way of knowing is solving blocks. For example, a miner could send all generated coins to the same address and sign the tx with that address. Likely a more elegant way exists. If you mean you don't know if they'll have X hashing power in the future, yeah, of course. |
|
|
|
Send the first when it is ready, label it Issue -2. Or hurry the fuck up with B&N and make Feb Issue 0 and Get Issue 1 out in B&N next month.
Hehe. I wish it were possible to 'hurry up' with distribution. Yeah, I'm just messing. But seriously, in ten years I want some chump to start bragging about his first issue of Bitcoin magazine to me and I whip out Issue -2. |
|
|
|
|
Send the first when it is ready, label it Issue -2. Or hurry the fuck up with B&N and make Feb Issue 0 and Get Issue 1 out in B&N next month.
|
|
|
|
|
I would vote for libertarian, but it has no chance of winning.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
