十分感谢楼上的董约翰大哥给与回复，使得我新手一个又学到了一招。楼上居然是“Hero Member”呢！又是 “World Moderator”，幸会，幸会！！！有华人（或深谙中文的）在此当版主，一定能使比特币在中国流行起来，这是很好的一件事情呢。现在事情已经很明了了，凡是有投资属性的东东，只要中国人较大规模的介入了，那它的价格就是：没有最高，只有更高！！！  其實bitcoin在很多方面適合中國, 例如- 1. 中國實際稅率不低, 種類多, 要隱藏收入的傳統方法是用現金交易, 但現金有保安和假鈔的風險, BTC則沒有這些問題. 2. BTC可提供傳統銀行才有的服務, 如異地付款, 保證金等. 繞過銀行就更難查稅了. 3. 隱藏財富: 眾所周知國內有很多人的財富見不得光, BTC不但可以隱藏財富, 更可以讓人否認財富, 而且不能充公. 即使被抓了, 只要有命出來還可以繼續富豪生活. 這是世上任何貨幣或實物資產難以做到的. 4. 轉移財富: 無論是合法或非法財富, 由於有管制, 現在要把大量人民幣或外幣帶出境外, 是比較麻煩的. 通過BTC可以輕易把財富轉移國外. 5. 投資: 中國人對投資的瘋狂是難以理解的, BTC波幅大是很好的炒賣工具 6. 對抗通脹: 中國通脹嚴重, 而BTC可以抗通脹. 7. 賭博: 很多中國人好賭, 而BTC的匿名性, 不能充公等性質很適合作此用途 為什麼bitcoin在中國(還)沒有流行起來呢? 困難有如下- 1. BTC使用複雜, 即使在國際上, 仍然以進階電腦使用者為主. 但這群體並不是最有財力炒作bitcoin的人 (例如老闆們, 財富來源不明的官員, 瘋狂股民/彩民) 2. 缺乏中文資源: 所有主要服務都只有英文, 所有的客戶端都是英文, 成為普及的一大障礙 3. 未有認清BTC的特殊價值: 我的感覺是BTC在中國還是流於一種"免費印鈔票"的概念, 否則btcchina價格不應長期低於mtgox. 4. 缺乏商品市場: 這是一個(在進步中的)國際問題, 但在中國, BTC基本上買不到任何有用的商品或服務 5. 網絡限制: 防火牆似乎還未注意到BTC, 但隨著blockchain愈來愈大, 海外頻寬也是一大挑戰 推廣策略- 1. 客戶端漢化: 這是這裏的人最容易做到的事, 如果大家有興趣, 我可以參與 2. 商品市場在沒有更多人使用前難以興起, 推廣bitcoin的投資價值, 讓人們先參與炒賣, 然後再建立實體市場, 可能更容易 |
|
|
|
I believe Chinese people will have more freedom than Americans, in 2 or 3 decades.
Certainly, but not through any merit of their own. Chinese people all hate government and socialist, but Americans love them, so they elected Obama  again Those in China are pseudo-socialists. |
|
|
|
我就是在他们这里买比特币的，不用兑换成外币，方便。我反正买的量不大，基本可以买到。如果量大的大资金想要买，就一定要到Gox了，因为 https://btcchina.com/ 的 Market Depth 不行。 最近BTCChina的價格一直比Gox便宜, 這現象說明中國內地的用家是熊多於牛, 他們大概都是挖了礦就直接賣出的. 如果不趕時間, 把價格定在最高買入價高一點, 等一下都是可以買到便宜貨的. |
|
|
|
所謂实物比特币其實就是一個密封的紙錢包. Casascius把產生了密匙, 以防偽貼紙密封在硬幣上, 再把1BTC發到相應的戶口. 然後他丟掉密匙的紀錄, 他便不可能再取回那1BTC了, 唯一兌現的方法就是破壞防偽貼紙取得密匙, 再以回複紙錢包的方法取得戶口內的錢.
破壞防偽貼紙就沒太大的收藏價值了, 但代價就要你要相信Casascius是誠實的 (他真的沒有保留任何密匙紀錄). 其實這概念有違bitcoin的原意, 因為使用bitcoin本來就不需要信任任何人. 所以這東西只適合當作郵票錢幣一般的收藏品, 不宜作為儲存大量財富的手段.
谢谢楼上两位前辈给与解答。看来是这样，还是不兑现的好。邮票钱币我也喜欢收藏的。  這1949年"壹佰圓", 聽說就算在當年也買不到一根針. 因為貶值得太嚴重, 結困在1955年把人民幣面額大降10000倍, 100元就變成今天的一分; 而今天的100元, 其實是1949年的一百萬 這就是亂印鈔票所注定的結果, 所以我們需要bitcoin Casascius physical bitcoin已經成為大英博物館的收藏品並正在展出中, 所以也是有一定代表性的. 但由於大家都可以在Casascius那裏買到新的, 所以應該沒太大的二手市場. 除非將來bitcoin升至天價, 新發行的一般BTC硬幣以0.001BTC作面值, 那這些"古老"的1BTC幣便變得罕有了 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_image.aspx?objectId=3451294&partId=1&searchText=g68%2f18&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&numPages=10¤tPage=1&asset_id=1156712 |
|
|
|
去年底我在Casasius官网上买了两个1BTC面值的实物比特币，花了3.40BTC。30日已发货，估计这个月中旬前能寄到。
我的问题很多，因为实在不懂。
1）实物比特币如果兑现（兑现的英文叫redeem吗？）以后，是不是就没有比特币价值了？如果这样，是否还是不兑现好呢？我是用于收藏的目的。
2）如果不兑现它，硬币中可供兑换的信息能保存多长时间呢？3年？5年？
3）如果我想立即兑现，该怎么做呢？
1) 用于收藏的话,还是别redeem好. 2) 照理应该和BITCOIN一起同生同灭, 除非CASASCIUS 自己奸守自盗（很不可能）。 3）打开保护膜，把PRIVATEKEY输入MTGOX/ARMORY/ELECTRUM。。。。。 所謂实物比特币其實就是一個密封的紙錢包. Casascius產生了密匙, 以防偽貼紙密封在硬幣上, 再把1BTC發到相應的戶口. 然後他丟掉密匙的紀錄, 他便不可能再取回那1BTC了, 唯一兌現的方法就是破壞防偽貼紙取得密匙, 再以回複紙錢包的方法取得戶口內的錢. 破壞防偽貼紙就沒太大的收藏價值了, 但代價就要你要相信Casascius是誠實的 (他真的沒有保留任何密匙紀錄). 其實這概念有違bitcoin的原意, 因為使用bitcoin本來就不需要信任任何人. 所以這東西只適合當作郵票錢幣一般的收藏品, 不宜作為儲存大量財富的手段. |
|
|
|
I find an interesting transaction: http://blockchain.info/tx/9106ac6859097079d39127aaac86208ac2a2b9bade92c3ae109192b7bc340872Paying 0.01BTC fee, it sent 228 x 0.000001BTC outputs to SatoshiDice. SD returned the fund (because they were lower than the minimum bet) with 228 transactions with 0.001BTC fee for each, with a total of 0.228BTC or about 3USD. Comparing the loss of the attacker and SD, the ratio is 22.8x and seems quite effective. Actually there were 243 outputs in the attacking transaction (15 of them were not sent to SD) so the real ratio should be 24.3x. Since outputs do not contain public keys thus are small in size, I think 0.01BTC fee could actually pay for more than 243 outputs, making the attack even more effective. So the question is, what could be the maximum harm done if the attacker paid 1BTC fee? |
|
|
|
|
The current blockchain size is about 4.5G. If we prune all spent outputs, what the size would be?
|
|
|
|
I think this could be an interesting topic with interesting implications to bitcoin.
What do you think: will China ever think of banning email?
It's easier for them to completely shutdown the internet |
|
|
|
What I was thinking is that someone living in a country that doesn't allow bitcoin (doing deep packet inspection or something) could travel to a country where it is allowed and issue loads of addresses with small amounts of bitcoin, and then come back and use email to send the coins, sending a list of private keys that would make the total amount in the correspondent bitcoin addresses, the desired value to send.
To receive coins, ask the payer to send them also in "bitcoin quanta", let's call it like that, using email and PGP, sending for that matter a list of private keys that would sum to the total value of that payment.
Am I making sense?
Is that sending the private key to an address with a lot of money is risky. And having them 'quantized' makes it less risky; and seems to work well for sending and receiving the coins with email and PGP.
Just use Armory. Receiver holds the watch-only copy and construct unsigned transaction, and send the unsigned transaction to the payer through email. The payer will sign and return it to the receiver by email, and the receiver will broadcast it. |
|
|
|
URL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21001) Create COIN_DUST constant, to represent the dust spam limit used. 2) Update COIN_DUST from 0.01 BTC to 0.001 BTC Rationale: With the increase in bitcoin value (US$13.67 as of this writing), it seems reasonable to reduce the value level of which we consider "dust spam." 3) Update TX miner and relay fee defaults to 0.001 / 0.0005 BTC respectively Rationale: Reflects growth of dust spam in unspent transaction output dataset. Review of impact: a) Definition of COIN_DUST reduced from 0.01 to 0.001. b) Miners who mine with this code will require a fee >= 0.001 to include TX's with outputs <= COIN_DUST c) Normal clients will require a fee >= 0.0005 to relay TX's with outputs <= COIN_DUST Another post ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128900.0) mentioned that currently 11% unspent output is 0.00000001BTC, 32% is less than 0.0001BTC and 60% is less than 0.001BTC. At the current price of US$13.5, 0.0001BTC worths only $0.00135. These are basically zero-value but take up 1/3 of resources of the network. To discourage these kinds of transaction, an even higher fee (e.g. 0.005BTC) should be charged with outputs < 0.0001BTC |
|
|
|
OK, I'll try to restate again I mine 500Mhs/s on p2pool and get a bunch of small payments per block and get 13 BTC and pre order a Jalapeno. I mine another 13 BTC, say on Deepbit, with a 1 BTC threshold to a different wallet and pre order another Jalapeno. Will the 13 BTC from p2pool require higher transaction fee to spend because they comprise a bunch of small input transactions? Thanks, Sam With 500MHs/s your average reward should be around 0.04BTC per block found. You can pack several inputs in a transaction with a 0.0005 BTC fee so your loss from fees is less than 1% when you use p2pool mined coins. So if the alternative is a pool with more than 1% fees you're automatically better off with p2pool. Currently the fees earned by block mining are around 1-2%, so if the alternatives don't pay you network fees, that's more you lose vs p2pool. And lastly, my 2 months performance on p2pool is 107,5% vs expected 100%PPS so p2pool seems to have a higher than average reward than most pools. I didn't even count some small downtimes in that period so it's a low estimate. This matches what http://p2pool.info/ reports: constant higher luck. One explanation may be that p2pool is by its nature better connected to the bitcoin network than most pools: all P2Pool nodes quickly broadcast a p2pool found block on the bitcoin network which may lower orphan rate. That's a very helpful explanation. So at 4 Bit Cents per block my 13 BTC example would have 325 inputs. Would that really be only a 0.0005 BTC fee? Does anyone have a real world example? Thanks, Sam Why not using a MtGox deposit address. It is free to receive and withdraw so you can combine your dust outputs to bigger ones |
|
|
|
|
I think PPC has multiple algorithms: PoW and PoS
|
|
|
|
But having to rely on trust is a cost of its own.
Not in Ripple! The trust in context of Ripple is kind of by-product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-product. It is derived virtually at no cost from much more important to human beings informal (non business) relations. On newspaper I always read stories like "someone borrows millions of dollars from colleagues/friends/family and run off/go bankrupt/commit suicide/get arrested for scam. Usually the excuse is a wife with cancer/a good investment opportunity/etc. That's how the human beings informal relations being exploited. |
|
|
|
At least I know in Ripple everyone can issue IOU without any limit, as long as someone else accept. It could be a perfect system for Pirate scheme scam.
It could prevent scams & schemes. Who would loan BTC to someone who only has outstanding debt? Who would loan money to someone who's only credit is that from Pirate? Such a system could prevent a pyramid foundation. Pirate seemed to be trustworthy because he always repaid as promised (before he ran away). That's why more people joined the scheme, and people invested more. If it happened on Ripple, the system would just show he repaid as promised and make him look more trustworthy. He could also loan and repay his sock puppets to build up trust (I bet he actually did this). It's all about trust and greed, no matter it is run on Ripple or not. The only reason he may not want to use Ripple is the transparency of the system. However, this could be evaded by using sock puppets. |
|
|
|
At least I know in Ripple everyone can issue IOU without any limit, as long as someone else accept. Exactly. There is nothing wrong with that. Everybody can be a bank! Until now you can go to a bank and deposit your money. The bank issues IOU stating they owe you money. From now on everybody can do this and bear the consequences if they fail or profit from the success if trust gets bigger! So it is about trust in a single person or entity. I'd deposit my money to a bank with 0.1% p.a., rather than to pirate with 7% per week, because I trust the bank more. |
|
|
|
So many people trusted Pirate and invested millions of USD and what happened? Ripple is not about trust in a single person or entity. You should read something more about Ripple before starting an argument in this forum. Ripple will also facilitate incompetent people to over-issue credit and end up in bankruptcy. Sure. The good news is that only the incompetent people and those that overestimate their judgment skills and trust them will pay the price without affecting the rest of Ripple network. Trust is a very important aspect in every business relation. Trust makes your business more competitive. On the contrary, the lack of trust is very expensive for both sides in a business relation. I wish I could read more but on ripple.com what I see is only "401 Authorization Required" At least I know in Ripple everyone can issue IOU without any limit, as long as someone else accept. It could be a perfect system for Pirate scheme scam. |
|
|
|
USD survives because it is backed by the US government and its nuke. Ripple is backed by what? Who and how to bailout when there is a crash?
Ripple is backed by something much stronger than the US government. It is backed by trust between people! The larger gets Ripple network the stronger it gets. Printing money is not really a bailout. It is just postponing the inevitable by making consequences even worse with the single and only hope that time will cover blatantly criminal acts in the financial sector. Point is, nobody needs such 'bailouts' except criminal that are bailed out! So many people trusted Pirate and invested millions of USD and what happened? Bitcoin has survived the pirate scam because it is trust-free. If it happened on Ripple, the system may have collapsed due to credit contraction. Ripple will also facilitate incompetent people to over-issue credit and end up in bankruptcy. |
|
|
|
I agree with this under a physical metal standard...but Bitcoin is the game-changer. It's a final means of payment but, unlike metals, it has virtually zero carrying costs. We have never had a hard asset like this in all of human history. Bitcoin is actually very expensive to run and maintain. You'll see that once bitcoin gets widely adopted and blockchain bloated to unforeseen limits. Even now you have to offer something like Electrum bitcoin client and server to decrease this cost! And that basically means you are introducing certain lever of trust making the tradeoff I've mentioned above! I've come to the conclusion that Ripple cannot destroy Bitcoin anymore than USD has been able to destroy gold. You are quite right! But why do you fail to recognize that the dollar successfully managed to destroy gold as money for 40 years? Bitcoin doesn't have a 6000 year of history as money like gold. What will happen to bitcoin if it doesn't get widely adopted as money for the next 40 years? My point is that trust based money ultimately fail if there are no built in mechanisms to check them against reality. However, they are very efficient in a normal economy and can exist for a very large periods of time practically destroying the use of other monetary values! USD survives because it is backed by the US government and its nuke. Ripple is backed by what? Who and how to bailout when there is a crash? |
|
|
|
|
This question has been asked over and over and over
blockchain.info should remove that page. It's so misleading and gives NO useful information
|
|
|
|
1. double-spend. It seems ripple uses trust instead of mining to prevent double spend. Even if an IOU is issued by a trustworthy entity, people spending it may not. In contrast, in a colored-bitcoin scheme you only need to trust the IOU issuer, and the rest is protected by mining. If there is a trust-less and decentralized solution without any kind of proof-of-work or proof-or-stake, it would definitly be a bitcoin-killer (but I don't think this could happen).
Think of a room full of people who all agree with each other. To enter the room, you must agree with them. To disagree with them, you must leave the room. They all sit in this room maintaining continuous agreement on everything. Each of them who is honest puts their first priority on enforcing the rules of the room, their second priority on maintaining agreement with everyone who is also willing to follow the rules, and their third priority on accepting legitimate transactions provided they don't violate the first two rules. The rules of the room make it infeasible to agree to a transaction once a conflicting transaction has been agreed to -- such an agreement cannot be formed and be valid according to the rules. So this is basically a proof-of-stake based on number of nodes and web-of-trust? i.e., all of my honest friends think this is not a double-spend, so this is not a double-spend. I seriously doubt if this could be at least as safe as proof-of-work of bitcoin. If it were, Satoshi would not have to implement proof-of-work. Obviously, an attacker could split the network (if not overwriting transactions) by controlling >51% of nodes and declaring the rest as dishonest. The only reason for abolishing mining I could think of is to allow the developers to collect transaction tax through selling Ripple Credit How about my second point? I can illustrate by the following table: | Payment method | Anonymity | Traceable by unrelated parties | | Gold, cash, pre-paid gift card | Yes | No | | Credit card | No | No | | Bitcoin | Yes | Yes | | Ripple | No | Yes |
In a creditor-debtor relationship, only the creditor could be anonymous. If the debtor is anonymous, the creditor will very likely get burnt (e.g. TorWallet). For cash and gift card, the holders are debtor so they could be anonymous. Gold and bitcoin are commodity and not debt, so they could be anonymous for anyone. On the other hand, credit card and ripple are based on credit so they could not be anonymous. (theoretically the debtor in ripple could be anonymous, but this seems not intended in the design) Gold and cash are basically untraceable. There is transaction record for gift card and credit card but they are inaccessible to unrelated parties and are good enough for daily legal use. Bitcoin is decentralized and the record has to be traceable for everyone to prevent double-spend. This is not a major problem because bitcoin is anonymous. Ripple is the worst choice among all. Who would like to show their credit card bill to everyone, related and unrelated? Not me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
