|
A satoshi is an nonsensical unit. People throw around the argument that "a satoshi is the smallest possible division of a bitcoin" without considering how temporary such a designation is. The mill ($0.001) was once the smallest subdivision of many major currencies. Now, its use has become cumbersome and the smallest subdivision has adapted to the cent ($0.01) in many cultures.
A similar fate will happen to the satoshi because it simply isn't granular enough to sustain an economy consisting of 7 billion people. Ignoring potential impacts of fractional reserve, when considering lost bitcoins, there will only ever by 2 quadrillion satoshis to work with. Even with the most equal distribution, at 285714 satoshis per person, this isn't enough for day-to-day use. Most people in the United States, for example, have over $3000.00 of cash savings, which is already more than the 285714 smallest subdivisions. This ignores businesses, which are like people in their own right, and often have even greater cash reserves.
Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed with the satoshi as the smallest subdivision in mind. Initial versions of the client showed only 2 decimal digits, though all 8 were tracked. Satoshi believed that the subdivisions will be changed as time goes on to accommodate usage patterns. Thus, there is no reason to measure prices with 0.00000001 of a bitcoin, since that measurement has only temporal significance. In a decade or so, the last languages to use 58-bit integers (JavaScript primarily) will have gained 64-bit (and likely 128-bit) integers as well. There will then be no encumbrance in subdividing the bitcoin further.
If we believe mBTC to be too large a unit, perhaps we should use nBTC. This will do everything a satoshi does without using an awkward power of 10 not commonly seen in today's society.
This argument itself is weak anyways. Humans are not averse to changing units every few years or every few decades. Allow me to give a common example: computing. Today, disk capacity is measured in TB. Not long ago, this was measured solely in GB, and before that in MB. In the not-so-distant future we will be measuring it in PB. Such rapid unit-switching has failed to even faze the consumer base; indeed, if anything, it has taught the average person something about SI prefixes. Even using different units simultaneously fails to confuse people. My RAM is 16 GB whereas my disk drive is 5 TB. The HD video takes up 5 GB but the MP3 file only 5 MB. And my word document clocks in at merely 10 kB. Am I confused? No, and rightly not.
There is no reason to believe steadily changing units as the conditions recommend will cause confusion. Indeed, this steady replacement of units need not even be mandated by a "Units Commission". Businesses and consumers will simply change units themselves as convenience dictates, and the rest will follow eventually, some earlier and some later. Countries used to worthless base units, such as Iran, may switch to μBTC quicker than Canada would. Fearful of large numbers thanks to historical inflation, Zimbabweans may choose to stick with the mBTC until the bitter end.
And the best part is that nobody will be confused.
|
|
|
|
Skipped a day, sorry about that. Luckily no new records have been posted yet. 1. 2013-04-09: 0.21467 USD/mBTC
2. 2013-11-02: 0.20422 USD/mBTC
3. 2013-11-01: 0.20261 USD/mBTC
4. 2013-10-30: 0.20105 USD/mBTC
5. 2013-10-31: 0.20040 USD/mBTC
6. 2013-10-29: 0.20017 USD/mBTC
7. 2013-10-23: 0.19625 USD/mBTC
8. 2013-10-28: 0.19485 USD/mBTC
9. 2013-10-22: 0.18914 USD/mBTC
10. 2013-10-27: 0.18876 USD/mBTC
11. 2013-10-24: 0.18591 USD/mBTC
12. 2013-04-10: 0.18465 USD/mBTC
13. 2013-10-26: 0.18218 USD/mBTC
14. 2013-04-08: 0.18149 USD/mBTC
15. 2013-10-25: 0.17940 USD/mBTC
16. 2013-10-21: 0.17572 USD/mBTC
17. 2013-10-20: 0.16518 USD/mBTC
18. 2013-10-19: 0.16326 USD/mBTC
19. 2013-04-11: 0.15893 USD/mBTC
20. 2013-04-07: 0.15426 USD/mBTC Note that I have switched from bolding one month only to bolding the last 30 days. October dates will begin to be unbolded in mid-November (providing, of course, that they remain on the list  ). Interestingly, although few April dates remain in the top 10, we are still far from breaking the April 9 high. |
|
|
|
Something I've always found odd is that the English-speaking Bitcoin world has little communication with the Chinese-speaking Bitcoin world. Us English Bitcoiners always get news of important broadcasts in the PRC from a restricted set of users. Consequently, our information seems to be delayed a few hours. There seems to be a great wall between China and the rest of the world. These Chinese Bitcoin exchanges see almost no representation on leading chart websites on our side of the wall. Neither Bitcoincharts nor Bitcoinity even has a fraction of the exchanges listed! Chinese Bitcoiners have their own forums, where most Chinese-language discourse is hosted. Heck, they have their own Chinese-language Android app! Even on the ubiquitous Bitcoin site where all languages converge, the Chinese have built a wall. From a cursory glance into BitcoinTalk's Chinese-language subforum, most users posting there have little contact with the outside world. This starkly contrasts with most other language subfora, where users often post in the English-language subfora even if their English is mostly broken. Is there a particular reason for this barrier? Perhaps it is the innate nature of the Chinese to build a wall around them? |
|
|
|
Well they certainly dont act like a big company, i wouldn't go anywhere near Satoshi Dice if this is how they run things.
It's interesting that people think we're "a big company"  Guys, this wasn't a big deal. We thought it was funny to catch Mooshire saying those things, then PMing us to innocently ask about more promo. Did nobody else find that a little amusing? We'll let it rest, we're not trying to upset people. This was amusing and was worthy of a thread. Its funny that people think a just because large corporations become sterile and inhuman, (often to legally protect themselves) other smaller operations must follow suit by choice, Bitcoin's pseduo anonymity and lack of legal recourse should mean we can keep be human longer. I don't think there is any business small enough to be deemed acceptable to publicly post a response to their 15yr old gambler. Some things are better left unsaid. This just makes it that much easier for the SEC/FBI. Arrogant + Bitcoin = SR. Trust me they are itching for a reason to steal more coins to sell to Google Ventures and brandish BTC as 15year old gambling money. Red Flag here. American 15 year old gambling online. Despite the IP block (which is retarded) They should spend less time trolling the JD chat and more time fixing their site. just saying This logic is equivalent to not revealing a scam because it will bring negative publicity. Have you ever considered the alternative: have Mooshire simply stop, since what he's doing is illegal? |
|
|
|
I fully support SatoshiDice's decision to bring Mooshire's irresponsible behaviour to light. It is clear that even with this public posting, Mooshire still fails to admit fault: I didn't exploit nothing lol, I gambled fair and square. I may have had the intent to game the system [. . .]
I have sent Mooshire a negative trust rating, as he is definitely a character I will not be doing business with in the future. By releasing this to the public, SatoshiDice has potentially saved myself and other Bitcoin traders from a dangerous and dishonest person motivated solely by greed. Consequently, I do not believe this action to be at all uncalled for. Companies, large or small, have a duty to protect the public from people who do harm. Leave him a negative trust rating?
This is exactly the type of behaviour I think 0-risked negative ratings are for. Not only did he betray SD's trust by doing this, but he failed to correct (or even admit) his mistakes. I'm not sure what mistakes there are to correct or admit. I went to the website intending to make accounts to game the system, ended up only making two, and didn't even use a single one of their promo bit-dimes. Is this what you are looking for? Dishonest intent is dishonestly, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Leave him a negative trust rating?
This is exactly the type of behaviour I think 0-risked negative ratings are for. Not only did he betray SD's trust by doing this, but he failed to correct (or even admit) his mistakes. |
|
|
|
Wavering around the same price level. We have yet to challenge April 9 for #1, though we may soon. 1. 2013-04-09: 0.21467 USD/mBTC
2. 2013-10-30: 0.20105 USD/mBTC
3. 2013-10-31: 0.20040 USD/mBTC
4. 2013-10-29: 0.20017 USD/mBTC
5. 2013-10-23: 0.19625 USD/mBTC
6. 2013-10-28: 0.19485 USD/mBTC
7. 2013-10-22: 0.18914 USD/mBTC
8. 2013-10-27: 0.18876 USD/mBTC
9. 2013-10-24: 0.18591 USD/mBTC
10. 2013-04-10: 0.18465 USD/mBTC
11. 2013-10-26: 0.18218 USD/mBTC
12. 2013-04-08: 0.18149 USD/mBTC
13. 2013-10-25: 0.17940 USD/mBTC
14. 2013-10-21: 0.17572 USD/mBTC
15. 2013-10-20: 0.16518 USD/mBTC
16. 2013-10-19: 0.16326 USD/mBTC
17. 2013-04-11: 0.15893 USD/mBTC
18. 2013-04-07: 0.15426 USD/mBTC
19. 2013-04-24: 0.15207 USD/mBTC
20. 2013-10-18: 0.14831 USD/mBTC When it comes to consistently-high prices though, we've been on top for a while. October is the second record-breaking month in a row. 1. October 2013: 0.15650 USD/m BTC2. September 2013: 0.12433 USD/m BTC3. April 2013: 0.11509 USD/m BTC |
|
|
|
During the next six months, I am going to make a master thesis about Bitcoin. Currently my working title is " Bitcoin as a disruptive technology". My main hypothesis is Bitcoin is changing the value chain in finance, which basically means huge disruptions can, and probably will, happen. However, I would love to hear YOUR thoughts! I need a shitload of literature, and I am currently collecting that. So far I've basically taken all the top 10 papers on Google Scholar about Bitcoin (the official paper, two Bitcoins at the price of one, how to make Bitcoin a better currency) and some others. I am not trying to cover Bitcoin from a technical angle (besides 5-10 pages which is necessary to understand its implications), but from a business+society angle. - What literature would you include? Any ideas is MUCH welcome and appreciated What's your masters' in? E-Business (a combination of business, law and technology). Anyone else: Thanks for the input Of course, any science is in English, so the report will be written in English as well. Luckily Indians with PhD's in English cost 5-10$ an hour, so they can fix all that spelling/grammar stuff! :-D I thought Indians were good in IT. Wrong tool for the right job eh? Indians are good in everything 'cause there are so many of them. |
|
|
|
Update. Prices are high enough that I feel it prudent to change the units slightly. 1. 2013-04-09: 0.21467 USD/mBTC
2. 2013-10-30: 0.20105 USD/mBTC
3. 2013-10-29: 0.20017 USD/mBTC
4. 2013-10-23: 0.19625 USD/mBTC
5. 2013-10-28: 0.19485 USD/mBTC
6. 2013-10-22: 0.18914 USD/mBTC
7. 2013-10-27: 0.18876 USD/mBTC
8. 2013-10-24: 0.18591 USD/mBTC
9. 2013-04-10: 0.18465 USD/mBTC
10. 2013-10-26: 0.18218 USD/mBTC
11. 2013-04-08: 0.18149 USD/mBTC
12. 2013-10-25: 0.17940 USD/mBTC
13. 2013-10-21: 0.17572 USD/mBTC
14. 2013-10-20: 0.16518 USD/mBTC
15. 2013-10-19: 0.16326 USD/mBTC
16. 2013-04-11: 0.15893 USD/mBTC
17. 2013-04-07: 0.15426 USD/mBTC
18. 2013-04-24: 0.15207 USD/mBTC
19. 2013-10-18: 0.14831 USD/mBTC
20. 2013-04-25: 0.14307 USD/mBTC |
|
|
|
You guys are missing the bitcoinrain/mercadobitcoin 10~15k btc theft. bitcoinrain was basically a ponzi and mercadobitcoin(one exchange donator to bitcoin foundation) used adulterated fiat balance to gather coins. The operator of both sites excuse was this: he put all coins of bitcoirain in one account of his exchange www.mercadobitcoin.com.br because he though it was safer this way so he could go in a trip but unfortunatelly the website was hacked in his absence. guess what, the "hacking" event occurred during the bubble. withdrawals from his ponzi(bitcoinrain) were already halted many days prior the hacking event. After the heist of his exchange account that also held his ponzi coins no addresses were made public and since we is a known person and already threatened by government he tries to keep this as silent as possible, thus he aims at trying to keep everyone that had coins with him under control. His is promissing one payment plan pricing the coins at 180 brazilians real, about 80USD. He also held hostage any fiat balance people had on his exchange for more than 3 months after bubble popped, which is the reason I say he used to manipulate the sellings. profile of the suspect: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=10275Every coin sent to bitcoin rain accounts would first go to this address: https://blockchain.info/address/1FuiZdyNvJPy5pPdJMSNSoUhme3D6FmPppI just found this thread and will compile a more detailed version of the facts later. Has been added. Others coming soon. |
|
|
|
That sort of usage is allowed. Trust ratings aren't moderated.
Call me insane, but it seems tysat is using it as more of a note taking place for sketchy activity then for trust, why not have a checkbox to make it as such. A checkbox that say it is a note and has no real bases on the trust activity cause until these people say or do something. Cause if tysat did that to me I would also be mad, look at my trust feedback it mostly trolls who I have called out and then when I go to make deals it hurts me sometimes. i have asked for a neutral setting for ages, i think it is only not being done cuz i was the one who thought of it. it is clearly needed. To me, not putting anything in risked BTC should be a neutral trust rating. No, it shouldn't. Say I trade with a newbie, and I ask her to send first. She "complies", sending me a blockchain link that displays an irrelevant transaction, hoping for me to send the goods without noticing. I catch this scam: I risked nothing, but this newbie is not to be trusted. This is just one of many reasons for no risked BTC to be negative or positive. |
|
|
|
Has been a month (well, 30 days at least  ), so I'm rejoining for next month . Recycle for next month please. Updated sig to latest version. Recycle for next month please. (You already paid for the last month.) |
|
|
|
Hmm this is interesting I was under the perception that the United States constituted over 80% of all bitcoin trading but if this is true their is a great argument here to say that it is becoming more mixed in its origination.
Thanks
So instead of America controlling 80% of Bitcoin, China does. I fail to see how this is "more mixed". |
|
|
|
Changed the format a bit. Data presented is still the same. 1. 2013-04-09: 214.67 USD/BTC
2. 2013-10-29: 200.17 USD/BTC
3. 2013-10-23: 196.25 USD/BTC
4. 2013-10-28: 194.85 USD/BTC
5. 2013-10-22: 189.14 USD/BTC
6. 2013-10-27: 188.76 USD/BTC
7. 2013-10-24: 185.91 USD/BTC
8. 2013-04-10: 184.65 USD/BTC
9. 2013-10-26: 182.18 USD/BTC
10. 2013-04-08: 181.49 USD/BTC
11. 2013-10-25: 179.40 USD/BTC
12. 2013-10-21: 175.72 USD/BTC
13. 2013-10-20: 165.18 USD/BTC
14. 2013-10-19: 163.26 USD/BTC
15. 2013-04-11: 158.93 USD/BTC
16. 2013-04-07: 154.26 USD/BTC
17. 2013-04-24: 152.07 USD/BTC
18. 2013-10-18: 148.31 USD/BTC
19. 2013-04-25: 143.07 USD/BTC
20. 2013-10-16: 142.61 USD/BTC |
|
|
|
Speed of light is the "fastest internet connection" you are going to get.
This always bothered me; assume a string of (non elastic) rope from earth to Mars. If someone pulls it on earth, wouldnt it be noted instantly on Mars? Nope. Not even gravity will be noted instantly. If I disappeared Earth right this instant, Martians will only notice the change in gravity after the gravitational waves arrive, coincidentally at the speed of light. |
|
|
|
|
By the time humans settle Mars, the block reward would have decreased significantly and will no longer be an important factor of mining. The solution, consequently, is simple: add a "second genesis block" to Bitcoin. These blocks are identical to regular blocks, except they employ a different hashing algorithm (to prevent Earth-miners from overtaking the Mars chain), and primarily deal with transactions broadcast to Mars. Interplanetary transactions will certainly take a while, as the Mars blocks will need to be broadcast to Earth, but are seamlessly integrated into the system. Transactions limited to a single planet work as expected.
Every time a new planet is settled, new genesis blocks can be created, one for each planet.
|
|
|
|
i dont see it is profitable to buy any ASIC miners now, only if u have free power suply
Even if you have free power you may be tempted to do something more profitable with it than mining. Not getting payment for electricity isn't funny. I think mining is the most profitable for free electricity, maybe baking cakes too... The way things are now, buying a miner will be a loss even with free electricity and no miner wear whatsoever. Difficulty grows exponentially and the profit from a miner will never reach the cost of the miner. |
|
|
|
Hi, TF.
Is there a reason for the 0.4 --> 0.3 or is it just to save funds?
Thanks.
The fact that Bitcoin's value has almost doubled might have something to do with it... |
|
|
|
Continuing the trot to the top. 1. 2013-04-09 W. Avg: 214.67
2. 2013-10-23 W. Avg: 196.25
3. 2013-10-28 W. Avg: 194.85
4. 2013-10-22 W. Avg: 189.14
5. 2013-10-27 W. Avg: 188.76
6. 2013-10-24 W. Avg: 185.91
7. 2013-04-10 W. Avg: 184.65
8. 2013-10-26 W. Avg: 182.18
9. 2013-04-08 W. Avg: 181.49
10. 2013-10-25 W. Avg: 179.40
11. 2013-10-21 W. Avg: 175.72
12. 2013-10-20 W. Avg: 165.18
13. 2013-10-19 W. Avg: 163.26
14. 2013-04-11 W. Avg: 158.93
15. 2013-04-07 W. Avg: 154.26
16. 2013-04-24 W. Avg: 152.07
17. 2013-10-18 W. Avg: 148.31
18. 2013-04-25 W. Avg: 143.07
19. 2013-10-16 W. Avg: 142.61
20. 2013-04-29 W. Avg: 142.25 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
