I could create a ledger with some paper and a pencil, calling the numbers in the ledger "nums", and after someone fulfills some requirement I can write +50 "nums" to their account. Then, for example, they can then have me write -25 "nums" to their account and +25 "nums" to someone else's account. But what direct service do "nums" provide? Why would anyone want to pay a cost (whether it's meeting some arbitrary requirement or offering a good) to acquire any "nums"? The only difference between "nums" and bitcoins (and this difference is actually irrelevant) is one of who or what is trusted. Even assuming you had full trust in me and my ability to keep the ledger accurate and secure, "nums" still provide no direct service to anyone. My ledger service has the potential to provide a direct service, but the "nums" it keeps account of do not provide any direct service, so would my ledger service actually be providing a direct service to people by keeping account of "nums"? I don't think so.
You are right that it all revolves around trust. The fact that you can buy something for dollars (or gold) is because other people trust that whey they in turn need something they'll be able to turn the dollar they received into something else. This is the same case with bitcoin. Dollars don't provide any what you call 'direct service' (if you don't use them as a wall paper that is), or 'use value' (in Marks terms I think), they only value is 'exchange value'. I still disagree that the ability to pay taxes is not a direct service. I know that I need to pay a certain amount of taxes. So, for me, the dollar is backed: this 1000 dollar bill will be able to pay off 10% of my taxes, so if I get 10 of them they have served a direct service (me not being in jail). Currently, Bitcoin is not backed this way. However, it can be. That's the extent of my argument. |
|
|
|
Contrary to popular belief, the dollar is backed by something. If you are a citizen of the United States, there is a certain currency you need to pay taxes in. Both dollars and bitcoin are backed by a mutable value denominated in that same value. If the value of a dollar was reduced to the value of a grain of salt, then taxes would be similarly related to a grain of salt. Bitcoin value is backed by the electricity cost while the electricity cost maintains a strong correlation to the value of a bitcoin. If a bitcoin were worth one grain of salt, the electricity cost would be roughly one grain of salt. This is where I have to disagree. Dollars cannot be worthless due to the tax backing, because there is always demand. Bitcoin, in contrast, does not have guarenteed demand because you cannot excange Bitcoin for electricity. |
|
|
|
This discussion is getting a sillyness flag from me. The dollar and Bitcoin are no different in terms of "being backed up" or "being real". Both are worth something only because people trust that you can get goods with them, and usually a certain amount of certain goods.
Contrary to popular belief, the dollar is backed by something. If you are a citizen of the United States, there is a certain currency you need to pay taxes in. There is no way to avoid purchasing the USD in some way without being punished. Therefore, your USD will always be exchangable for "protection" and "non-punishment". This is why the USD is refered as "fiat" currency, because it is backed by and only by law. Therefore, the dollar is effectively backed at the moment by the law enacted by the Government of the United States. Bitcoin is currently not backed by any law, so it cannot yet be considered "fiat" currency. There is no promise of any goods exchangable for Bitcoin at the moment, as it has been demonstrated numerous times when sellers renege on their prices. There is also no promise of safety from holding bitcoins. This is not to say Bitcoin is unable to be backed, as it fully can be. For example, in theory it is possible to sustainably back Bitcoin with gold. Since only $21000000 will be produced, if I obtain 21000oz of gold I can back every 1000 bitcoins with 1 oz of gold. This is a promise, and therefore a backing of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Here the high price median got squished together with the lower quartile at $4.19.
Monday.
*chart*
Is the model probability calculated directly off support/resistance? If so, then is the overlap due to intense resistance at $4.19? |
|
|
|
No, but at these levels, relevant pricing data is getting pretty old.
Even a couple years into the future, $30 would still be a preety powerful resistance (unless the price goes back over $30). Edit: fixed quotes |
|
|
|
Now... people said the 51% attack can only double-spend, but I thought that the whole chain and rules were based on consensus, so if 51% said the new rules were there were more money, even though the client was hardcoded it would only fork at the point that something that was hardcoded got ignored (ie, once we got to above the hardcoded limiting amount past 21m). Even then, wouldn't the client just think something was wrong and stop getting a connection? I mean it's consensus so if 50% agreed to new rules wouldn't that be the new rules?
Not exactly, because a client won't accept a longer blockchain with different rules. The client accepts the longest blockchain following its rules, so aside from a gigantic waste of resources, half of bitcoin using a new set of rules does not affect your half. |
|
|
|
207-218, except I only personally did 10 (someone else must have sneaked one in).
1FivMpV3gVbq8qHhMoZZy7EvRLH74ZRo6e
I'm getting friends to vote every now and then  But keep voting people, I'm paying as long as the contest is open! Looks like you still have a long way to go before you reach Manoel Borges. And thanks for the extra 0.001 . Is this a popularity contest or something? Kind of weird how they allow 20 votes per IP. |
|
|
|
|
207-218, except I only personally did 10 (someone else must have sneaked one in).
1FivMpV3gVbq8qHhMoZZy7EvRLH74ZRo6e
|
|
|
|
Bitcoins will drop below 4 in near weeks. There is no economy, no any significant turnover. Almost all turnover is generated by speculations and investments. # of transactions per block in blockexplorer are smaller and smaller over time. So why should it go up? It just a bursted bubble in a current level of popularity.
Instead of inspecting mtgox graphs you better inspect internal block chains for a volume and transaction dynamic over time to predict bitcoin value.
Assertions lacking evidence! Also, real exchange of Bitcoin IS increasing. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_DestroyedThat number is guaranteed to increase - so this does not give you any information at all. That chart depicts %, which is not guaranteed to increase. Unfortunately, that chart only goes up to June, and most of that activity I presume is mining pools, exchange deposits/withdrawls, and gambling. Edit: I've got no idea why we use % of total BDD rather than the last say 2100 blocks. I do admit, that number is guarenteed to increase and is therefore preety pointless. |
|
|
|
I am really sorry you are offended by my statement. I honestly did not think anyone would be stressing me because .02 is a day late, when they should know that I am going to be paying them. It takes time to verify everyone had my "god awfull" orange button and then send out 7 payments to 7 different addresses.
But please go be angry because you got paid 0.02 btc a day late and then I had the nerve to act like I have other things more important to do than make sure you get your 0.02 on time.
Have a nice day!
btw: some people are still rocking the button just to support the competition.
I don't care if you send it all at once at the end (or even a few days later), so long as I get the money (since I actually save in tx fees). Some people may be mad because their 0.02 BTC is worth less as the price goes down (they lost $0.001! oh noes  ), so you can safely ignore them. |
|
|
|
As hard up on logan you were about being timely, I would have thought you'd been on top of this.
btw: did you even read that thread? He lied thats why I made such a big deal about that. It was not about timeliness. It was about honesty, I'm going to keep my signature like this until the week is over, maybe a day or two more as a tip to you. So far I've recieved three payments, so you are a tad bit behind right now. |
|
|
|
Are you sure it's not a problem with your database theymos? The other block explorers report the 50 BTC generated ok
That's because the 50 BTC was, indeed, generated ok. It's just not possible to spend the duplicate transactions since the Bitcoin client considers the two transactions to be one and the same. How exactly is it possible for two transactions to be the same? Or is this only possible with "Generated" transactions? |
|
|
|
With all this competition, how is IxCoin faring? The network seems healthy, but the alt cryptocurrency market is like the mobile phone market now. Solidcoin is still vastly more popular than IxCoin, and GeistGeld and Tenebrix are catching up. Any innovations you have planned? Heh, from #bitcoin: [19:13] <TNasakioto> http://www.ixcoin.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ixcoin_Statistics[19:14] <TNasakioto> We are currently much healthier than Old Solidcoin and Solidcoin Testnet [19:14] *** TNasakioto is now known as dree^[12]. [19:14] <dree^[12]> I'm actually long IxCoin [19:15] <dree^[12]> I believe it will only go UP UP UP Just FYI it's quite obvious in IRC when you switch names, unlike here  It's me, as you can see. Promoting IxCoin isn't bad, is it? |
|
|
|
Tenebrix and GeistGeld supposedly premined 8 million? I am still trying to figure out if these are one big troll currenies. Iocoin, was a get back at ixcoin. Tenebrix did make a client, so he might just be having fun, but has no details on the amount that will be made.
So there might only be
ixcoin
solidcoin
namecoin
bitcoin
Namecoin is stable enough (as well as bitcoin) to be not considered. I consider the only true competitors to IxCoin (which I fully support, by the way) the larger SolidCoid (which isn't even up right now), and the smaller GeistGeld and Tenebrix. I0Coin is dying, and the bid side has dried up. Although GeistGeld and Tenebrix both have the weakness of being able to lose all their value in a blink, so I am not currently speculating there. My economic positions are: IxCoin: LONG SolidCoin: LONG (currently closed) GeistGeld: None Tenebrix: None I0Coin: SHORT (too bad there isn't a easy way to short I0Coin, since that would involve taking a loan) |
|
|
|
With all this competition, how is IxCoin faring? The network seems healthy, but the alt cryptocurrency market is like the mobile phone market now. Solidcoin is still vastly more popular than IxCoin, and GeistGeld and Tenebrix are catching up. Any innovations you have planned? |
|
|
|
Joeyjoe is not a robot. He needs to sleep! |
|
|
|
At present it is 0.96 less profitable than bitcoin, when it is 1.4 which is more profitable, you can mine it and exchange for bitcoin. I don't think I want to keep i0coin but it can be profitable depending on the value of exchange between i0coin and bitcoin
If nobody buys I0Coin, it wouldn't be worth anything. My question is, why are people buying it? |
|
|
|
Why are people still buying I0coin? It doesn't seem to have a future right now. |
|
|
|
Okay, thanks. How did you obtain that number: ran a script over the blockchain? ABE?
I queried the BBE database. It currently takes like 10 minutes to compute, though, which is why I don't make it available on any page. You wasted 10 minutes to help me - I'm honored! I sent a tiny donation as a token of thanks. |
|
|
|
Quantum entanglement has interfered and shifted it 15 nanoradians. So we now need to wait a couple hours for it to get a gravity assist from the sun.
Wut? Is no need to be grammar nazi, twas onlly a misskey. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
