...probably flawed. I lack time/skill/smarts to get more into it, the technicalities...
I think for much of this, that is all quite clear. This looks like all kinds of centralized hubs, third parties, price stabilization, and the like - all things which are pretty much at odds with the distributed nature of bitcoin which is one main advantage. Perhaps doing some more research and then revisiting the ideas would be productive, then you can fork the software and find someone to implement things if you so choose. If they are good ideas people will flock to you. |
|
|
|
...
A lot of people are starting to notice that increased merchant adoption is actually driving price down, not up.
...
A lot of people are CLAIMING this, but it is illogical and unproven. It has been discussed in other threads, but still gets trotted out elsewhere as fact when it is likely exactly the opposite. |
|
|
|
So many threads like this here. So many people panicking and missing out on changing their lives! Stop obsessing about the price and chill! It will be all right... or it will be 0. Deal with it.  Exactly. It will either do really well or it won't. The technology and uses are great and could be game changing. If the game changes, the fiat value will increase greatly, but the key is that it is useful, regardless of the fiat price. In the last almost 4 years, one hears the same thing - "it is crashing from $30" or "it is crashing from $3" or "it is crashing from $1, we won't ever see dollar parity again". :-) |
|
|
|
|
I did something similar - just adjusted maxconnections in bitcoin.conf.
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
It is funny you posted this, I was noticing the same thing with a new node I was bringing online today - FWIW, I see it on Ubuntu 14.04. It seems to be relatively normal right now with the code as it is, but starting and stopping bitcoind seems to have helped performance since it was bumping up to the 751 ceiling. What you link to seems to explain it somewhat obscurely.
|
|
|
|
Your title isn't right.
Current price of bitcoin is not a record low.
Yeah, what is up with "Record Low". This is nowhere near a record low. |
|
|
|
Haha, sticky this thread.
Even just the title is enough.
You could put it in the page header.
Maybe it should say: "TUHS PU and wait 5 years" if people are into the HODL thing. ;-) |
|
|
|
This is one of the annoying things about Bitcoin and miners...greedy miners they are not required to charge a fee. the system is like capitalism and is prioritizing due to incentive something which is a flaw in our brains and basic philosophy.
The nice thing is that since you don't like it, you are free to fork the client and blockchain and do it the way you want. Then you can see how many people agree with you, and we can see how it all works out. Let us know when your fork is ready to go so we can see how well it works in practice, particularly since this is a coinbase fee vs a bitcoin fee. |
|
|
|
Public confidence in it has been dropping after the whole Mt Gox thing. On top of that, you have people investing in other bitcoin alternatives without the same success that bitcoin had.
People who don't understand that Mt Gox is not bitcoin are pretty dumb - particularly reporters. It is like saying "public confidence in the dollar has been dropping since the convenience store got robbed." |
|
|
|
|
That is probably reasonable given the current blockchain size. If it was really slow (e.g. days) you'd want to make sure that "app nap" was turned off.
|
|
|
|
Good example of "Work Hard, Work Smart"  Maybe work hard, but definitely not all that smart with the changes in difficulty etc - as franky calculated. |
|
|
|
I'm still chuckling at "an all time low since mid June 2014". That's quite a syntax stretch even for FUD.
...
Yeah, I don't think they understand the meaning of "all time". BTC was just at "an all time high for the last 15 seconds." WOW!!! GREAT NEWS. Talk about meaningless, stupid FUD. |
|
|
|
I agree. More places to spend ==> more usage ==> more acceptance. In theory that should mean a higher fiat price baring other negative factors. I think we've seen that over the past 4 years, even the past 2 years. One point of note is that we are now more than half way to the next reward halving (spring/summer 2016 depending on how quickly mining power is added during that period). At some point in the next 24 months people will realize that the mining subsidy (new bitcoin supply) is about to drop by half and at that point there will be more interest in obtaining coins prior to it doing so. Whether that will occur quite a while before the halving, shortly before or shortly thereafter I do not know. But once the awareness that the new supply will be cut in half I believe that it will have a significant impact on the fiat price of bitcoin as it did in the past (along with many other factors, including usage and acceptance of course). I think that with the larger awareness of bitcoin now as compared to fall of 2012, people will realize earlier the implications of the reward halving and so we'll see a good spike prior to that. Given that it appears that right now with the current block reward we are at a short-term equilibrium in fiat pricing, cutting the new supply in half will have a large impact on fiat pricing as long as usage continues to grow (or even possibly remains constant). bahahaha! Iluvpie60 thinks that companies accepting Bitcoin are increasing the supply of Bitcoin  It appears basic economics was thrown right out the window of the WTC7 Penthouse  Quote me where I said that. L2 read. nice edit to add the words "places to use". just a shame for you that we seen the pre-edit with our own eyes. In other words when looking at a rough supply/demand chart, US, the PEOPLE, are the demand. The companies are the supply. There is TOO MUCH supply coming in vs demand coming in, to make the price go up right now. care to edit the part highlighted in red too? You took that out of context, read everything in order and then it flows. You can't just take that part out because then it makes it "seem like" I am saying companies are the supply of bitcoin(which i didnt). The reason I worded it that way is because companies do not demand bitcoin, they supply products which are paid for in a nominal value such as monetary or crytpo, which is then implies bitcoin is the demand in the aforementioned example. I'm not saying he's a troll or a shill, but if it's the case that he is speaking his mind from a genuine disposition, than he simply just doesn't have any foundation whatsoever in basic economics. OK, So that there is NO FURTHER CONFUSION. This is what iluvpie60 states in his own exact words, completely in context. "Are you joking or are you actually this confused? We are not talking about the supply of BTC keeping the price at X. We are talking about the Supply of companies accepting the Demand of BTC keeping the price at x."and"You need to improve your reading comprehension. There is too much supply so price of BTC has been going down. There are too many places to spend the BTC compared to the people willing to spend the BTC(demand)."  So iluvpie60 is clearly declaring in all of his infinite wisdom that since there are more places to spend Bitcoin than people willing to spend than the price of bitcoin goes down. OK, let's use another financial asset to state the equivalent. Let's use Gold. And let's say that there is X amount of companies who are wiling to accept Gold for their products and services and Y amount of Gold owners who are willing to spend Gold. If X ( Amount of companies/people who want Gold (at least as a means of exchange) and are thus willing to accept Gold) is Greater than Y ( the number of people who are willing to spend Gold) How can any sane person state that the price of Gold is going to go down?? In both examples, there are less people wiling to spend an asset than there are people who would otherwise be willing to accept it for trade. THEREFORE, Price must go upSo why is the price of bitcoin going down? Markets go up, markets go down, there could be a plethora of reasons why, but none of which have anything to do with reasons thus stated by iluvpie60 |
|
|
|
@bluemeanie1, yes, every kind of mixing anonymization strategy will inevitably have this drawback.
If multiple entities - e.g. US NSA, SVR (Russian CBP), Chinese MSS, any private entities etc - are all attempting to de-anonymize mixing they will end up interfering with each other and help anonymity. So it seems beneficial to encourage more than one group to attempt to de-anonymize mixing and not cooperate with each other. Private entities/people using large balance addresses to avoid transaction fees could enable multiple groups to take part in each mix at no cost to them while increasing the number of parties in the mix and consequently increasing anonymity for everyone involved. :-) |
|
|
|
Since we can store the wallet balance in the chain We don't and we can't, so the rest of your suggestion is invalid. True. Likewise, if I understand what you are suggesting, I do not believe this adds anything in terms of security that could not be done at the application level vs the protocol level. In either case (creating/changing your rules with your private key etc) vs bitcoin as it is now, if someone has your private key, you are screwed because they'll just change your rules and then transfer your coins. A root cause of insecurity is protecting your private keys and adding these rules doesn't help with that. I must be missing something - explain to me how bitcoin stops people spending more than the balance of their address. The rule key is required to remove a rule. The rule key is more secure than a private key, because you dont need to use it all the time, and it only ever gets used once - to remove a rule. 1. You are missing something. The nature of the protocol ensures no one can spend more than the balance that an address contains. If you could overdraw an address bitcoin would be worthless. (Using the concept of balances at addresses as shorthand.). If you are talking about something you didn't say, the total balances at any address for which you control the private keys, your client can enforce whatever rule you want, but the protocol does not. 2. By default Bitcoin Core doesn't reuse addresses and consequently private keys either. Hence change addresses, new addresses for each transaction etc. Reusing addresses can cause security issues such as the android PRNG issue for reused addresses so it is already not recommended. If that is the concern, a rule disallowing address reuse might be considered (I don't think it is a good idea either, it too could be enforced client side). Anyway, if your computer is compromised you are screwed either way. The difference in security between having a second layer at that point is de minimis. As an aside, the odds of this being adopted by everyone are infitesimal when you can accomplish the same thing (or more) with good security on the client side. It is like adding email at the tcp/ip layer vs on top of it with SMTP. You want the lower layers to be simple so they are easier to debug and here it is even more important since if you lose an email it can be resent, vs potentially billions of dollars at stake with bitcoin. You can always implement what you suggest and then see how many people will adopt it. |
|
|
|
Since we can store the wallet balance in the chain We don't and we can't, so the rest of your suggestion is invalid. True. Likewise, if I understand what you are suggesting, I do not believe this adds anything in terms of security that could not be done at the application level vs the protocol level. In either case (creating/changing your rules with your private key etc) vs bitcoin as it is now, if someone has your private key, you are screwed because they'll just change your rules and then transfer your coins. A root cause of insecurity is protecting your private keys and adding these rules doesn't help with that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
