i would buy property to rent out and some of the rest buy some coin and invest to make more of it, sell it and some i'll keep in storage for the future, thinking like keeping some in storage to build up in time and pass it to my kids for herritage tax reasons, because i think herritage tax is pure theft by the goverment. paying tax on already taxed money is theft.
investment or start a research compagny in naturefriendly science and tech and education would be a thing i do too. we realy need to put those oil and gas- gmo-, global industry-, banking- and religion barons on their place and frack em... look what they do to our beautifull planet.... we realy need to hack the planet back
so if you have the means to do so... do it, think of those who'll be living here after you.
I like the way you think. You seem to have a firm grasp on reality. Also, never spend more than 7-10% of your net worth on any risky investment (like Bitcoin) with the potential to drop to zero value. Unless you're going to live in it, you should never invest more than 40-50% of your net worth in real estate. Real estate can go down in value but will always be worth something. |
|
|
|
What you argue here (as I understand it) is that miners won't be able to 'understand' the SW patch, so they won't run it. I highly doubt both an assertion and a conclusion. I am sure it will be rolled over quite fast. But I have no real proof so we have to wait.
To migrate to a large change in infrastructure, you need to not only understand the solution, but also fully aware of the impact to the existing system and all the other systems that are dependent on them, potential security risk, evaluate its risk/reward ratio, and finally and most important, you should always be able to roll back to the old version if something went wrong A soft fork qualify the last criteria, but still, from risk/reward point of view, I don't feel it worth the effort given the risk it involves. You change to a new untested architecture, what if after 1 years when majority of the nodes were upgraded to SW and found out that there is a deadly security hole that can not be covered, thus hackers can spend anyone's coin? Bitcoin's value relies purely on its security model. Existing architecture worth a lot because it is robust and time tested for almost 7 years. It worth a little in the beginning, since there are too many possible security risk to break it apart, thus it must survive the test of time to gain its value. Now if you change to another untested architecture, it will basically reset its value to zero, and take equal long time to establish people's trust This is growing tiresome. Do you fully understand the complexities of the ACH/EFT system? I bet, just like me, you have a general understanding of how it works but have never seen the code behind it. I would also bet you have or have had at least one debit card and credit card in your life because almost everyone in western society has. There were 22 billion ACH transactions in 2013 with a total value of $38.7 trillion and almost no one really understands how it works. The way the ACH/EFT system continues to operate is by government and private oversight. People make a career out of working in finance and programming who oversee the system and there are laws that govern the form of that oversight. The users of Bitcoin believe that system is flawed. They see potential in Bitcoin and are willing to use it. That requires faith in the original architect and the developers that continue to improve it because there is no governing body to regulate its continued operation or bailout its failures as there is with ACH/EFT. That leaves two possibilities for our acceptance and use of Bitcoin. Either build up a world class understanding of at least C++, Python, Java and elliptic curve cryptography or trust the people that are doing the job for you. I've learned to trust some of the scientists that work on this project based on their actions. Others I don't trust at all. Unless a mistake becomes blatantly obvious or someone I trust decides to speak out against this change I'm going to trust it because my understanding is limited. I suggest you do the same. |
|
|
|
For all future sleuths attempting to dox a fraudulent Satoshi: just ask them to move a half million btc around from their original stash as proof. If they can't, they're full of shit.
That will be quite difficult for Satoshi himself as most of his alleged coins are spread around a ton of wallets right? The best and only sure way is by signing a message with the original key. Bullshit, when I was mining I had maybe 50 wallets going at once. They certainly could do it. In fact, I think anyone that keeps all their btc in one wallet on one computer is as big an idiot as one that keeps all his fiat in one bank. |
|
|
|
|
For all future sleuths attempting to dox a fraudulent Satoshi: just ask them to move a half million btc around from their original stash as proof. If they can't, they're full of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost there, I just need a little more push for that $500 a coin I need for Christmas presents. Let's try to have that done by Dec 20 if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has become a fastdice convention. WTF
|
|
|
|
There have the worst customer service known to men for this kind of platform just for a misunderstanding now they stealing all my btc  fucking coinbase is the next paypal don't do business with them if you can help it. But that's what they want to be. Just like PayPal, they comply with every little regulation the fiat system has to offer. Their employees probably get fired if they get caught j-walking. It is funny that this philosophy of compliance is exactly the opposite of what the original designer of Bitcoin wanted it to be. The Bitcoin Whitepaper ~ Satoshi Nakamoto Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution......
.....Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. |
|
|
|
You can get on Reddit from anywhere in the world. I mean live in person in the United States. I go to a lot of conferences and used to see them all the time. I haven't seen them in over a year, since they did a no-show at the Vegas conference with Patrick Byrne. One of the Vegas conferences was where I met Bruno wearing a tutu. lol Same conference, I met a bald headed fuck that reek of corned beef hash.  Hum, I wonder who that sexy hunk of man was? lol |
|
|
|
Well i think gender doesnt make any difference when its come to money
For me bitcoin is a digital money, as long as it consider as money all people love it no matter what gender
And for your question the answer is yes, all of my co worker, the girls one include , are very aware of this bitcoin
You're right, women are really good with money.  |
|
|
|
Ok, that doesn't seem so bad at all. It's just a sidechain solution.
well its not a side chain in itself.. but yea if you have 20 blockchains linked together.. some lite clients may want a reduced history of all chains. although the full nodes/miners still have to deal with 20 full blockchains. lite clients can have a basic summerised copy. i think the solution to lite clients. is to not send out a command to the network with a block height attached asking for all new blocks since X.. (to resync) but instead send out a command to the network with a public key attached asking for all tx data of that key. that way liteclients only store the data relevant to the keys it holds Yeah, I can understand that. Those of us that primarily use SPV clients will still be secure. Miners will hash reduced size blocks and full nodes will be the only ones burdened with an even larger carrying capacity. Works for me. I only use lite clients now and haven't run a full node in over a year. |
|
|
|
If they really intended to be thieving scumbags why not just let a few million dollars in preorder btc pour in and retire to a non-extradition beach house somewhere?
There're lots of other kinds of fraud. From day one their MO was this. Over-promise and tie up pre-order funds so that customers couldn't get refunds and/or purchase competitors' products. We even have Josh on record admitting that the delivery dates being promised were impossible. That makes them thieving scumbags. Oh, I know they're all thieving scumbags. Inaba should be burned at the stake just for being a horrible excuse for a human being. I just think they put in far too much effort for a preorder scam to be their original intention. They should have claimed that their facility was in some remote location that would preclude anyone from visiting them then run the preorder scam until it was bled dry. Why spend all that money to make, what I consider to be, a pretty good product? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's still happening but Jeff Garzik was releasing a blockchain torrent periodically. That compressed torrent could be copied off on to hardened drive and stored at regular intervals.
I think he might have stopped that after 0.10.0, headers-first sort of negated the majority of the benefit. There used to be a stickied thread about the torrent on the board, but it's gone now (unsticky'ed). Possibly it's still going for a less important reason, not totally sure. Another Garzik project might provide the complementary infrastructure required; the Bitcoin LEO block relay satellites project (I think it was called BitSats at one point). The base-stations for the satellites would need good connections to the hard-wired Bitcoin network. Because of the capability of the BitSats to route around the hard-wired network, and because they would eventually be distributed fairly evenly across the globe, they would make ideal facilities for blockchain archives using a variety of resilient storage mediums. Even just a massive brown-out could be mitigated with a structure like that in place. There would be no motivation for any superpower to air burst EMPs over their own country and the blockchain is worldwide so that is off the table as a possible scenario.
Electromagnetic solar radiation never effects the entire planet at once. Think of it this way, is it daylight everywhere on the earth at the same time? A solar flair event would need to transmit the proper wavelength continuously for at least 12 hours to permanently destroy all electronic devices. Hardened devices such as stored in faraday cages, specially shielded or buried underground in bunkers would still survive. You're talking about an event that is so improbable the likelihood of it happening is comparable to a worldwide pandemic killing everyone on the planet with no survivors.
Yep. EMP is potentially very damaging, but cannot level total devastation. I think nuclear winter/fallout is the only real scenario under which all electronics could possibly be rendered inoperable, and those circumstances are right up there in the "you'll have more to worry about than x" stakes. Interesting, I've never heard of BitSats before. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, that doesn't seem so bad at all. It's just a sidechain solution.
|
|
|
|
|
I just bought a lovely prune danish and a americano.
|
|
|
|
But doesn't the signature verify the transaction was created by the real owner of the address? What about multisig? Is that gone with this new system? Sounds very flaky to me.
You are correct. However, I'm not talking about removing the signature data; I said excluding from the blocks. Wouldn't it be nice to just drop the signatures? The reason why we can't do this is because the signature is part of the transaction hash. If we would just drop the sig from the transaction, the block wouldn't validate, you wouldn't be able to prove an output spend came from that transaction, so that's not something we could do.
You get a size increase because you no longer store the signatures in the block, you just have all your signatures empty and reference an output like [hash] OP_TRUE, where [hash] is the script hash to execute. Then you can sign for the transaction with an empty script sig. Data for the signature is held outside of the block, and is referenced by a hash in the block (probably in the sigScript of the coinbase transaction). Because the signature data isn't part of the real block, you can make the block+extra sig data be more than 1 MB.
It does not eliminate multisig, it actually solves malleability as I've previously stated and as seen on the slide. Ok, so how are the transactions signed and does it increase the possibility of address collision? Hal Finley proposed batch signature verification long ago where it was believed the shortcut to secp256k1 would bring as much as a 20% speed increase to signature verification. By the time it was modified and implemented, in order to protect security, there was almost no speed advantage. Removing the sig verification from the mined blocks will most likely have some kind of security leak issue. I'm just not knowledgable enough to tell you what it will be. I'll be eagerly watching the development. |
|
|
|
|
But doesn't the signature verify the transaction was created by the real owner of the address? What about multisig? Is that gone with this new system? Sounds very flaky to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Lauda, explain Segregated Witness to me like I'm five.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's still happening but Jeff Garzik was releasing a blockchain torrent periodically. That compressed torrent could be copied off on to hardened drive and stored at regular intervals.
There would be no motivation for any superpower to air burst EMPs over their own country and the blockchain is worldwide so that is off the table as a possible scenario.
Electromagnetic solar radiation never effects the entire planet at once. Think of it this way, is it daylight everywhere on the earth at the same time? A solar flair event would need to transmit the proper wavelength continuously for at least 12 hours to permanently destroy all electronic devices. Hardened devices such as stored in faraday cages, specially shielded or buried underground in bunkers would still survive. You're talking about an event that is so improbable the likelihood of it happening is comparable to a worldwide pandemic killing everyone on the planet with no survivors.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
