|
How long until someone says we need to blacklist the jihad-coins? Never mind that Euros, dollars, yen, and yuan have been used for years.
|
|
|
|
It is not right to penalise those who worked hard and save up for retirement, over those who spend every penny they earn.
Funny thing is, I've spoken with people who regard savers as selfish pricks that are hoarding money instead of spending it and helping to keep others employed. The person commenting is usually young, without any savings, and with huge debts for rapidly value depreciating products. Exactly. And you see it here often too - all the talk about "hoarders" and "redistributing their bitcoins" if they aren't used it X time. It is always easier to try to get someone else to pay more to support you than to do so yourself. |
|
|
|
... It is important to keep in mind that a perfect (or even very good shuffle) is probably not needed...
Just wanted to point out that a "perfect shuffle" is different from a perfect riffle or a perfectly implemented random shuffle. It may be obvious, but just in case it isn't for people who weren't exposed to it in a CS class or math class (or probably Vegas ;-) ), a perfect shuffle is also known as a faro shuffle and will the deck back in order in 8 shuffles if all are done with a "perfect shuffle". It splits the deck exactly evenly, then exactly alternates the cards from each side. This compares with the random riffle shuffle like I mentioned above. I had said "If you use a perfect shuffle, it isn't random of course" but then realized it might not have been clear. |
|
|
|
"stable and secure currency with little to no volatility"
Stable? How is a currency that is continually losing value "stable"? Anything backed by fiat is not stable when fiat is actively debased.
Second, sure, if I price a banana in bananas, then I can always buy one banana for one banana and it gives perfectly zero volatility. They have no volatility in Krone terms because it is priced in Krone. Ditto for Realcoin except in dollars.
Combining fiat currency with crypocurrency is the height of stupidity, you get the worst of both worlds.
Have you read our information at Coinaaa.com? Coinaaa is a non-inflationary currency. Not sure where you get your info from. It does not lose value, the nominal value will increase over time, the real value will most likely stay the same. https://coinaaa.com/I got the information from the press release (which shouldn't be in this section anyway since it is not "notable" by any stretch) where it says "currently backed in NOK (Norwegian Krone)". That states that it backed by fiat currency. Have you read your own press release? Most disturbing of all is the part where it says "This gives us full control over Coinaaa, and we can implement any changes that we want if we have to". Talk about a major fail: You have it backed by fiat, but claim it is not inflationary; You have a company that has "full control over Coinaaa" which means the only stability is based on someone's word, not even an elected official, but some random person, not math and the protocol like bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...
For John Doe it would make no sense to convert fiat to Bitcoin just to spend it at a retailer where he could have spend his fiat instead. Unless it is something he really wants to buy (somewhat) anonymously.
Or something he wants to save credit card fees on. Or something he wants to buy from overseas. etc. Just because your John Doe won't do something does not mean that Jane Doe won't. Some people will, some won't. |
|
|
|
|
"stable and secure currency with little to no volatility"
Stable? How is a currency that is continually losing value "stable"? Anything backed by fiat is not stable when fiat is actively debased.
Second, sure, if I price a banana in bananas, then I can always buy one banana for one banana and it gives perfectly zero volatility. They have no volatility in Krone terms because it is priced in Krone. Ditto for Realcoin except in dollars.
Combining fiat currency with crypocurrency is the height of stupidity, you get the worst of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
Yeah because they never had to take days or weeks apply for a credit card or open a paypal account. Mr John Doe almost certainly already has a credit card. And since when did it take weeks to open a PayPal account? The point is that he doesn't have Bitcoin already, so it makes no sense for him to go and buy Bitcoin, just to spend them straight away. Yes that was why I said "had", past tense. At some point he had to open a credit card, and it likely took weeks to get the card in the mail. Paypal also used to take quite a while to get it open and tied to a bank account back in 1998 and 1999 - don't know how quick it is right now, but certainly no faster than using coinbase. Question: Why would anyone open a paypal account when they already had a credit card? Same answer for bitcoin, it provides some benefit to them. Either lower prices or any one of innumerable benefits. The entire article is just one stupid statement after another, starting with the title: "Usage pushes the price down". This is a duplicate in the press section, by the way from July 4th: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=679085.0 |
|
|
|
Anything I am missing?
My only concern would be that the deck be truly and well shuffled. Cards sticking together, shuffling habits, and other human factors could influence the realistic number of permutations available, and might reduce the total entropy of the seed. The question (perhaps one that can only be answered by running hundreds of thousands, or millions, of tests with actual humans shuffling actual decks of cards) is: How much entropy is lost to the various biases that might be involved? Randomness is a good point. If you use a perfect shuffle, it isn't random of course. But if you model a random riffle shuffle mathematically seven shuffles should be sufficient (cut binomially, drop cards from either side with a probability proportional to the current size of each side). I remember seeing the proof that at that point any combination is equally possible. Of course no one would be that good so another couple of shuffles should be done when doing it by hand. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah because they never had to take days or weeks apply for a credit card or open a paypal account.
You have to wonder about the authors of these articles.
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
If bitlaunder.com is going to do more than mix coins, who would use them in the future? Only a fool if what you say is true about him holding on to coins.
This shows why trustless mixing is important.
|
|
|
|
If they are not for sale (that is don't circulate), they can be considered as lost.  No. Just because you own a car and don't want to sell it does not mean it is lost. Ditto for bitcoin, gold, silver, diamonds, real estate or anything else. If they never come into circulation again, then yes, they are lost. And even if they do enter into circulation somewhere in the distant future, today they can be safely considered as lost too. Again, true, but that is changing the statement and not the same as saying that if I don't have my coins on the market right now, that they are lost. |
|
|
|
If they are not for sale (that is don't circulate), they can be considered as lost. No. Just because you own a car and don't want to sell it does not mean it is lost. Ditto for bitcoin, gold, silver, diamonds, real estate, your mind, or anything else. It just means they are not on the market. It really doesn't matter whether they are "lost" or "not on the market", or even who owns them. If 100% of the bitcoins are hoarded, then Bitcoin is dead. The value of hoarded bitcoins is determined by the value of the bitcoins in use. If no bitcoins are in use, then hoarded bitcoins have no value. Of course - I was responding to someone saying that bitcoins that are not on the market are the same as being lost which has nothing to do with having 100% of the coins being hoarded |
|
|
|
What do you think?
I think there are several points here. First the protocol. Think about tcp/ip, smtp, dns, ssh, ftp, http, https, ssl, pop, ntp, telnet etc. How many developers at the protocol level are there? How often and how many changes are there to the protocol itself? Very few. So from a core protocol level, the changes should be very few indeed. Next an implementation of the protocol. Bitcoin core/bitcoind is a reference implementation of the protocol, albeit an important one, but there are other implementations and other developers working in the bitcoin ecosystem. If you look at the entire ecosystem and compare it to the Linux ecosystem, then things change. There is a lot of money and there are a lot of developers working on various facets (e.g. colored coins, bitcoinj, bitcoinjs, exchanges, wallets, and many, many more). I don't think you can compare the Linux kernel with bitcoin core, they are different beasts. For example, you can run bitcoin without bitcoin core. You can run Unix without a Linux kernel, but I'd say you couldn't run Linux without a Linux kernel, it would be something else. Just because there are fewer developers working on bitcoin core, doesn't mean there are not enough developers working on the ecosystem itself. :-) |
|
|
|
If they are not for sale (that is don't circulate), they can be considered as lost. No. Just because you own a car and don't want to sell it does not mean it is lost. Ditto for bitcoin, gold, silver, diamonds, real estate, your mind, or anything else. It just means they are not on the market. |
|
|
|
I have spoken to a lot of people who had sold the majority of their holdings at various price points that were well under even $250. I think that anyone that was paying attention would have sold their coins well before BTC was trading at $100 as they had these coins that were were virtually nothing and all of a sudden became worth a lot
Lots of people who were paying attention did not sell (or spend) at $1, $33, $100, $260, or $1200. Certainly some did, but many did not. I think some people would sell a few right now to OP's buyer at $500k each, but I doubt they'd sell them all. |
|
|
|
iiiignooooreeeee
It would be nice if they brought back the color code on the "ignore" button. :-) |
|
|
|
|
You will probably want to re-ask the question with some more information as to what you want to do and what you are trying to ask.
|
|
|
|
Haven't lawyers drained enough money out of society already? Doctors used to be cheap before law suits..
When you have an unlimited government, nearly every group is going to try and use it to their own benefit. |
|
|
|
Yeah I certainly find the timing of all of the negative BTC related statements coming out of Europe very suspect at a time when Spain is seizing deposits retroactively, several countries are desperately trying to prop everything up to appear to be okay and currencies are failing. It seems that they are truly worried people will start looking at alternatives so FUD is happening on a larger scale. There were undercurrents going on for a while. For instance Belgium banned derivatives based on BTC. Historically Europe has been far more restrictive towards alternative currencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.comThe Spanish banking deposit thing is indeed a very scary omen. In a larger historical context it was alternative currencies that led to America's independence from Europe. http://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/fraud/colonial-scrip/-bm FTFY: Historically Europe has been far more restrictive towards almost everything. Although in the past 100 years the US has been trying to catch up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
