A Bitcoin transaction is just data. The method of transmitting a transaction from one node to another, whether by smoke signals, yodeling, or twitter, is not part of consensus.

On a related note, I would like to see the networking code segregated in such a way that nodes can interact using different network protocols and message formats.

Though you have to ask, "where do the dividends come from?"

I assume that by "spam", you mean a DOS attack.

#2 won't work well for several reasons.
#3 won't help if there is no way to distinguish between real transactions and spam. Otherwise, it would only make the problem worse.

DOS attacks only work if the cost of the attack is less than the benefit, so the obvious way to prevent them is to make transactions costly. But there could be other ways, such as being able to identify the source of a transaction.

DOS attacks also only work if they are big enough to disrupt the network. If a network is big enough or has enough capacity such that it can't be disrupted, then there is no issue. Consider the futility of a DOS attack against the entire internet.

As miners stop mining due to a low price, the cost of mining goes down such that the price remains higher than the cost. Is that what you mean?

It's old news now. The person got your password off of one or more sites that post leaked passwords. They don't have access to your webcam. They might have access to accounts on other sites if your passwords are the same. Ignore the email and change your passwords.

A steady price would be a best case scenario for Bitcoin; however, it would also indicate that adoption has stagnated, which is bad at this point.

Here is my understanding of how a prediction market works:

People bet on an outcome with the amounts bet on each side determining the payout to the winners. In theory, a prediction market works because the people with better information will continue betting against the people with worse information until the odds in the prediction market represent the odds given by the people with better information. If it works as expected, a prediction market makes an accurate prediction because the odds are ultimately determined by the people with the best knowledge.

Let's do an example:

• There is a bet on the outcome of the flip of a coin and currently there is currently $100 on tails and $1 on heads.
• A smart person who knows that the chances for a single flip are 1:1 would bet $10 on heads to maximize their gain in the long run -- the expected return would be $40.45, $90.90 for heads and -$10 for tails. Now the total bet is $100 on tails and $11 on heads.
• A different smart person would bet $22 on tails to maximize their gain. Now, the total bet is $100 on tails and $33 on heads.
• Eventually, the bet will be $100 heads and $100 tails because as long as the sides are not 1:1, a smart person can make money (in the long run).

In theory, it works. However, the success of a prediction market in reality depends on the existence of a sufficient number of people with good knowledge that are willing to bet enough money to counter the rest of the bets. But even in best case, the market can only be as good as the people with the best knowledge.

I have used shapeshift.io and they required no identifying information, but they recently announced that they will begin doing KYC.

The video is entertaining, but there are too many errors (mostly related to perspective and scale) for anyone to take it seriously.

The article contains a flawed attempt at demonstrating manipulation.


The net effect of this scenario is 0. It does not cause the price to rise.

Perhaps Virgil's buy order will look like increased demand and increase expectations of a rise in price, but when Virgil removes the order, wouldn't that cancel out the effect? Furthermore, according to the price manipulation idea, when the "hostile" bot's sell order is placed, wouldn't that cause the price to go down, and wouldn't removing the sell order cancel the effect?

Here is a summary of the scenario:

Bot places sell order: price falls
Bot removes sell order: price recovers
Virgil places buy order: price rises
Virgil removes buy order: price recovers

The problem here is the thinking that Bitcoin is only about investing.

It doesn't matter who buys bitcoins, or how much they buy, or how many exchanges there are, or how many ETFs there are. If people can't come up with a good use for Bitcoin, its value will eventually go to 0.

It is definitely a scam site.

That's a bunch of nonsense. Hopefully, you haven't sent them any money already.

Otherwise, having to send money in order to receive a large amount of money is a very common scam. Having to send money in order to receive your money is extortion.

A guaranteed unrealistic return is a classic indicator of a scam. The use of the phrase "arbitrage opportunity" is also typical of scams in this context. Claims of "algorithmic trading" are also a strong indicator.

That is not true. In the past, the temperatures have been both much warmer and much colder than they are now.

People that want to "save the planet" must remember that we are not saving the planet for its sake, we are saving it for our sake. The planet was ok before humans arrived, it is ok now, and it will be ok after humans have gone.

There is no world energy crisis. Eventually, it will be too expensive to burn oil and coal and global temperatures will fall. The switch to renewable energy might be expensive, but it won't cause a crisis.

Perhaps your rule needs some work. You are saying that all of the transactions in the Bitcoin mempool are not Bitcoin transactions since they are not confirmed. If that is the case, then your definition of "bitcoin transaction" is not very good.

We will see whether or not he has made it worse when the effects of his trade policy kick in. He will have to take credit/blame for that. I predict that he will make it worse, and his actions could trigger the next recession.

Just a crappy Coinidol article that says nothing. Don't bothering wasting your time on it like I did.

FTFY

Anyway, the design of Bitcoin makes it so that any reduction in the total cost of mining only increases the difficulty until the total cost approaches the value of the block reward.

I have a related concern with the idea that the Bitcoin Core source code is the Bitcoin protocol specification.

Eventually, the C++ language will go the way of COBOL. Very few people will be able to interpret and maintain the specification in the not-too-distant future.