Courts can absolutely be anarchist. I guess you've never heard of private arbitration? Judge.me? Decisions coming from private arbitration ARE ENFORCEABLE.
Enforceable by whom and how? |
|
|
|
I don't see the problem with mining. You don't need to give the pool a payment address until it's time for you to take your balance. You can put *MONTHS* or even *YEARS* of mining output in a single tx, in a single address Which is a really bad idea, and one that I imagine most pool operators would strongly advise you not to do. Bitcoins in your account with a pool are not really yours, not yet. They are just a ledger entry saying that the pool owes you money. If the pool is hacked, or just vanishes, those Bitcoin are gone. And it isn't as though that hasn't happened, more than once. Agreed. The trust free (or reduced trust) alternative is to provide the pool a BIP32 address chain and the pool simply sends periodic payments to a new address each time. |
|
|
|
I think its fairly likely that someone either in the Bitstamp management, or in the Gox management, or perhaps even in a partner site like Bitfinex, is somehow doing arb. The chances of an independent third party being able to arb effectively is pretty low IMO.
This. Exchanges can make a lot of money by arbitraging themselves. Not as easily as you think. The skewed-high exchange (gox) has to wire fiat to the other exchange (bitstamp) and trust them not to freeze/stall/aml-confiscate it, and the skewed-low exchange (bitstamp) has to trust that once the BTC are withdrawn they won't find the fiat clawed back as a result of a bank-level wire reversal, lawsuit, or bankruptcy proceeding. When you're talking about this much money wire transfers are reversible, either by banks or courts. Spreads like we saw recently come from a lack of trust at some level. It really can't be fixed except by mechanisms that involve trust (perhaps of a different sort). My best guess is that there has been a major positive development for gox's situation and somebody's trading on that inside info. Perhaps with gox's tacit approval since they'd rather fix the spread by leaking the info to one large whale so that by the time it becomes public the spread is already gone. That way they don't get mobbed with an enormous pile of fiat transfers (which are very labor-intensive) from a billion different customers all trying to arb $10 at a time. Could also be a major negative development for bitstamp although that's less likely. Well you don't have to do it one lump sum. Even $5K per day is $5.5M per year and when you are talking about a 20%+ arb that is a no brainer. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see ANYONE being interested or needing this for a very long time if ever. As pointed out a CPU is capable of >15,000 tps (or 30,000x more tx volume that Bitcoin currently has). Moore's law is still alive and well for the short term so a decade from now that is probably going to be more like 480,000 tps (about 50x what VISA processes).
Still maybe someday in the future it might make sense as a energy/cost saving measure but that day is likely a decade or more away (if ever).
|
|
|
|
Only problem IXC isn't any "closer" to Bitcoin than any other altcoin. Period. IoC as pointless as it is, is "closer" to Bitcoin. Hell just about any SHA256 based coin is "closer". Being closer is worthless but even if it wasn't IXC still doesn't fit the profile. But you go buy your coins based on features and services and all the bullshit tech jargon nobody in this world will care about and I will continue with my investment theiries cause so far I've kicked all your asses in my predictions and I have made what seemed like impossible poredictions. Funny guy. I mined and held Bitcoins when they were $2 ea. They probably cost me closer to $0.80 in produce. So keep on kicking asses. |
|
|
|
|
As pointed out CPU is not the bottleneck. The most cpu expensive portion of block verification is ECDSA signature verification and an average CPU today can do >15,000 verifications per second. That likely will scale with Moore's law. To put that into perspective the Bitcoin network right now is <0.5 tps.
Bandwidth between nodes is the largest bottleneck, after that would be IO speed, after that would be available memory, far after that is disk space and magnitudes after that would be cpu power. Still in theory if Bitcoin every became many magnitudes larger one could design a ASIC designed to quickly verify transactions and blocks.
|
|
|
|
And this is where ixCoin has the biggest advantage and stands alone: it is a perfect identical clone of Bitcoin with more liquidity. You keep saying that but it is not true. IXC lacks support for P2SH, multi-sig, dust prevention. On top of that it is missing about two dozen security and performance enhancements. It uses the older flawed database system. It has a different minting rate, support to miners will drop to zero aburptly, and it has an unknown future in the case of cheap ASIC based 51% attacks if miners drop it from merge mining. By your logic every single altcoin is a perfect identical clone of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What I'm wondering is where is MisterBigg? He was the dude saying if we removed the blocksize limit then miners would be stuffing everything into one block, even things paying 1 satoshi. I think that idea has been thoroughly debunked, particularly recently - his school of thought cannot explain the current phenomenon, and we're nowhere near the 1MB limit. More evidence we should just get rid of it. Indeed it seems that the issue of orphan blocks alone will stop miners from creating blocks that are too large in size. The fee market will be more based on that than the enforced limit. Agreed. It is something I hadn't considered but the "orphan cost" does constrain block size. I do think retaining a hard cap for the interim future (possibly raised to 5 or 10 MB) is a good thing. A malicious actor (and thus not interested in orphan cost) could do some damage to adoption by bloating the blockchain with very large blocks. |
|
|
|
|
They are biased towards certain prefxes due to the effect of the version code. If you wanted you could graph the distribution, I have never really cared enough I just remember from the vanityaddress thread this makes certain addresses harder to find.
Just to be clear there is no security implication. Public keys are randomly distributed. Addresses are simply encoded public keys.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin ADDRESSES are not PUBLIC KEYS. Bitcoin ADDRESSES are a versioned and checksummed PUBLIC KEY encoded in base 58. Due to the method of encoding in base 58 addresses aren't randomly distributed.
If you converted those addresses to their raw public keys they will be randomly distributed.
|
|
|
|
|
The best thing you can do is ... don't try. It will be a massive waste of effort. Even stealing computing time and racking up a massive power bill for someone else will only net you a few pennies worth of Bitcoins. It is a good way to turn a thousand dollars in electricity into a buck worth of bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
The only complaints I've had about the Bitcoin name is that it's fairly English-specific and awkward with metric prefixes.
Saying "a millibitcoin" is much harder than saying "a millimeter." same for micro, atto, kilo, etc.
The English-specific I was talking about goes well beyond just using "coin" as a root. What I mean is it doesn't work with the phonotactics of most languages that aren't English. Most languages have four to seven vowels; English has eleven or twelve, including diphthongs like "oi"!
A lot of Asian languages don't allow consonant clusters. If you're a (native) English speaker on the other hand you can pronounce words like "Twelfths" (yes, that ends in four entirely separate consonants with no vowels between them, and "th" is utterly outside the consonants most non-germanic languages allow)! Nobody else in the world, except maybe Germans, can pronounce "twelfths" correctly.
Anyway, "Bitcoin" isn't nearly as bad as "Twelfths" but it sure as heck isn't going to work in, say, Japanese or Chinese; they'll have to insert a vowel between the T and the C in order to pronounce it at all, and because they don't use the "oi" vowel in their languages they're going to substitute something else for that. It would have been nicer all around to name it something everybody can pronounce the same way.
One hundred and twenty two millibit |
|
|
|
|
For every buyer there is a seller. The question why would anyone spend their coins is similar to why would anyone sell them? Obviously if nobody would sell the price would go to infinity but there is always someone willing to sell at some point and likewise there is always someone willing to spend at some price point.
|
|
|
|
Let me repeat that - he is not anonymous and he could not run away with our funds for all kinds of reasons. Depends on how much money and how far he is willing to run. Plenty of nice non-extradition countries with sunny beaches where a couple million will last a lifetime. Maybe he will be willing to "escrow" his passport with John K.  |
|
|
|
I think it fun news and the meme, "to the moon", certainly gets a nice boost with this.  Well at least to the Kármán line. |
|
|
|
A wise man once said that a fingerprint is more of a username than a password.
This. To op understand that biometrics aren't deterministic. The laptop records your fingerprint and then when a finger is swiped it compares the two and if they are close enough it decrypts the password and logs the user in. Key thing is the software decrypts the password, as in the decryption key is in the software, as in someone could potentially extract said decryption key. |
|
|
|
How do you legislate around bitcoin, in order to take down the bad guys (like murderers, terrorists, not to mention drug deals, sex traffic, etc.) without bearing down too heavily on innovative businesses or shutting out potential markets?
What makes you think the purpose of legislation is to not hurt the small businesses? If you are a big business you pay Congress a lot of money to specifically hurt the small businesses. The small businesses, the startups are your biggest strategic threat. Far cheaper to just kill them in the cradle then someday run the risk of having to face them in a fair fight. If you are a company like WU or PayPal you aren't going to 51% the Bitcoin network, nerd fantasies aside it would be risky, expensive, and pointless. You are going to lobby to have Congress to slam these tiny startups (2,3, 6 people and budgets of $100K to $1M) with tens of millions of dollars in regulatory cost. |
|
|
|
Does that mean the network will get smaller? Probably not if Bitcoin is more popular. The exchange rate would only need to rise 25.5/14.5 = 75% to $1,230 USD per BTC for miners (collectively) to make the exact same ~$1B in annual revenue they do now. That is just with a 75% rise in 3 years. If it is more than 75% then the network will probably be bigger than it is now despite the block reward being lower (much like the network is 700 million times larger now then when the block reward was 50 BTC). This is a problem in my mind. It means mining stays the same, but the network and its activity grows, which means less security relative to the size of the network. But if the network grows, won't we need all that extra security? The reality is the network today is likely more secure than it needs to be. It pays miners roughly $1B in revenue for a network which has far less than that in current day real economic activity. This isn't really a problem because the secondary goal for mining is to provide the initial distribution. I am not saying Bitcoin is hurt by "too much security" but it also wouldn't hurt if that ratio declined some. Bitcoin today is kinda like using a $50,000 safe to protect a single 1 oz gold coin. Now imagine you didn't upgrade the security and added an additional gold coin each year for the next couple years. Not really problem although the ratio of security to gold has declined. Still the 75% was just to highlight how small of a rise in the exchange rate would be needed to keep the hashrate roughly the same in the face of block value declining. 75% over 3 years is 20% annualized. I am fairly certain if Bitcoin continues to be adopted it is going to grow faster than a 20% annualized rate. If it doesn't then well having the network hashrate fall by half is probably the least of our worries. Satoshi was a clever guy, the incentive to "do the right thing" grows with the value of the network. |
|
|
|
|
Well not exactly Danny. The larger the block the larger the chance of orphans. So as a hypthetical if you collect 2% more gross revenue but increase your chance of orphans 3% you actually (after accounting for losse due to orphan blocks) make less revenue. The large block subsidy kinda distorts the economics of mining.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
