Gold is industrial metal and jewelry. Bitcoin is nothing but currency. I consider bitcoin to be mostly a monetary superset of gold. I use the word "mostly" because bitcoin is not physical, is (currently) not recognizable by the general population, and cannot serve a purpose in a non-electronic society scenario.
But obviously it has all of gold's other qualities (the ones that provide most of gold's inherent utility/value), and usually does them better (eg, divisibility, known/limited supply, durability, etc). Plus totally new, and desirable, qualities (transactability, etc).
So....in the rosiest of scenarios for bitcoin and humanity (ie, still a coherent civilization that involves electronic technology, no big flaws found in bitcoin, etc), does bitcoin simply replace gold since it's inherently more desirable in such a world....ie, some corollary of Gresham's law in play...?
(please note that for the purposes of this question, I'm pre-supposing that there's been no 51% attack, gov hasn't killed bitcoin, protocol is still solid and scales ok, etc, etc...)
|
|
|
|
|
It's low because people are waiting for pirate
|
|
|
|
|
假設國家(A)要使用bitcoin作為主流貨幣, 那其本身必然要擔任miner的角色來保護bitcoin; 其敵對國家(B)如果要進行51% attack, 其運算能力除了要超越A, 還要再超越全世界的小型miner的總和. 換句話說, B要攻擊bitcoin所付出的代價, 必然比A要保護bitcoin所付的代價為高.
另外有更多的方法, 如proof-of-stake, 可以進一步增加攻擊者的成本
|
|
|
|
|
"比特币的概念是在 2009 年推出的，是一种网络虚拟货币，跟 Q 币类似"
Bitcoin跟Q 币类似? 不是說笑吧. 這種信息流傳出去只會損害Bitcoin在中國的發展
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe MNW is pirate. Therefore he is so sure that he will pay the investors.
|
|
|
|
|
+4 "auto1345320313..." bug. PM sent to redditorrex
|
|
|
|
I suppose you could require that a proof-of-stake have a small, limited number of signatures-- requiring that stakeholders maintain a small number of large-balance addresses. That's bad for privacy and security, though.
Privacy is not a issue here. Although you may use multiple addresses with smaller balance, the fact that they are signing the same block reveals their common ownership Security is a problem, even people may use multiple addresses with smaller balance. This actually requires stakeholders to put those private keys in a hot wallet. A possible solution is to have separate keys for block-signing and transaction-signing. We may use the transaction-signing private key to validate the block-signing private key. There even could be a "pooled proof-of-stake mining" model. A pool operator will publish a transaction-signing public key. Individual workers will sign this public key with their transaction-signing private keys (which link to BTC addresses with balance). When a block is found, the pool operator will sign it with the block-signing private key, and the contribution from his workers will be counted as proof-of-stake. The operator will then pay his workers based on their contribution. Each block will allow only one signature and that would also solve your DoS problem. Signatures for transaction-signing public key may be stored in the blockchain. The size would be similar to normal transactions and fee is required to prevent DoS. If the worker wants to withdraw from the pool, he may revoke his signature by sending another record to the blockchain, or simply draw all BTC from that address. For lost coins, however, such revocation is not possible. Therefore, all signatures should be expired in a pre-determined manner (e.g. valid for only 10000 blocks). |
|
|
|
這是Google翻譯嗎? 人家姓Warden, 名Mark, 參選州議員, 不是什麼監獄長  |
|
|
|
That would be great to have a public key cryptography version of Yubikey Yubikey uses symmetric crypto. The entity validating the Yubikey code knows the Yubikey's secret key and can therefore produce valid Yubikey codes for the person being validated. Even if Script was powerful enough to validate Yubikey codes (it's not), you'd have to publish your Yubikey secret key to the network, which makes it pointless.
 Thanks for the feedback. Is there another similar device based on public key cryptography? If there were, would Script have been powerful enough? If not, why not? Is it because it's not Turing complete, and thus it's not possible/feasible to run complex algorithms like verifying signatures? Can this be feasibly changed in the near future? |
|
|
|
|
Bounty received. Thanks! I'll continue to develop the web interface for it
|
|
|
|
Miners will decide the "optimal" block frequency only based on their interest (e.g. reducing mining variance), not for network security / efficiency
Exactly. Therefore, your proposal may actually have harmful effect on network security / efficiency. For example, if miners find out that 20-minute block is optimal for for mining, all transactions will wait much longer before getting confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
Miners will decide the "optimal" block frequency only based on their interest (e.g. reducing mining variance), not for network security / efficiency
|
|
|
|
|
I can do a perl script for you. You can host it like a php, with upload and export feature you want
|
|
|
|
分析得很好, 我也是不會參與這種借貸遊戲的. 而且20天才3.33%, Satoshi Dice 也許更安全 當BTC價格繼續上升, 借貸人的壓力會愈來愈大, 我也相信最終會出現大規模的違約. 但當這發生時, 不知對BTC價格有什麼影響? I have not provided audit of the method for making funds or returns, but have assessed Smart1985 and ZiggyStar and the funds (BTC) they have available to support their exchange. I have not specifically rated the different offerings such as project 16 or project 17. Investors still need to complete due diligence and ask questions. Alternatively, request a rating or "audit" of the individual products.
Patrick Harnett说： 我没有对他们获取收益的方法进行审计，我只是验证了Smart1985 和 ZiggyStar两人有足够的比特币来支持他们的业务。我也没有专门针对项目16、项目17进行评级。投资者在投资某个产品之前，需要自行完成尽职调查，自己问问题。或者说，自己寻找其他的评级或者审计。 首先我们发现，这个项目的发起人过度地宣传了自己。Patrick没有给他们评级，只是对他们进行了简单的”验资“。 如果指责这个项目是庞氏骗局，是我先入为主了。但是，这个项目依然是高风险的。他们相当于是一个银行，吸收储户的资金，然后用于放贷。中国人不会对这种业务模式感到陌生吧，发生在浙江、山东、河南、内蒙古等多个地方的高利贷崩盘事件，都离不开当地典当行、担保公司和私人资金串串的身影。 比特币是一种高度稀缺的货币，没有中央银行可以随便印刷。因此挣比特币是比较难的。少量资金可以因为运气、谈判、特殊机会等因素获得高额的收益，但是这么大的资金、长期稳定获得高收益是不大可能的。 在比特币的借贷经济中，我觉得一个诚实的基金经理一般不会选择对客户进行兜底，最好的方式是发行债券基金，明确地向投资人提示潜在的亏损风险。 现在比特币的借贷版上的利息很高，似乎信用也很好，这就和2011年的温州、鄂尔多斯差不多，高收益、高回报、看上去也没有风险，因为大多数的钱最后都能归还。直到某一个主要的借款大户违约，大家才发现自己的钱都拿不回来了。很多人一生的积蓄都被洗劫一空，很多贪图便宜的老人连养命钱都没了，很多资金中介也被迫人间蒸发，为了追债很多人被打得半死。 比特币的借贷者中，有多少借款人是拿钱去买入Pirate的高收益产品了？有多少人是企图短期积累信誉，然后借一笔大的跑路？层层嵌套的债务连套，如果一旦断裂，在比特币的世界，是不会有地方政府、中央政府和中央银行来帮助任何人解套的。 而且一般的规律是，这种”炒钱“的游戏，最好是早一点加入。现在pirate的产品已经发行了很多面向散户的工具、板上借贷的行为也越来越活跃，本身已经到了一个债务膨胀周期的高潮点。然后不巧的是，比特币的汇率有处于持续的牛市。年底，比特币的产出速率又要减半。 我相信比特币经济内的债务泡沫即将爆破，很可能就在2012年年底。大家小心。 |
|
|
|
|
Currently you pay a lot more to miners than to visitors (maybe 2:1 or more). You should send to multiple recipients in one transaction to save the fee, so you can earn more, reduce the advertising fee, and pay more to visitors --- a win-win-win solution
|
|
|
|
|
I have more than a hundred of mBTC size inputs in an offline wallet and want to send to a single address. The total balance is about 0.16BTC and Armory requires me to pay 0.0195BTC as fee. However, it always returns "SelectCoins returned a list of size zero. This is problematic and probably not your fault." What should I do?
|
|
|
|
I know you meant that, and you are incorrect. The private key of the SSL certificate is stored on the .onion site, not on the torwallet.net server. Perhaps you should look closer at how socat works: it has the option to serve up its own certificate, but that is not in use here. It is simply concatenating data between ports 443 and 9050, in both directions.
I mean the private key of the SSL certificate of torwallet.net, not the SSL certificate of the .onion site ...... The SSL private key for torwallet.net is stored on the .onion server, and the .onion server does all the encryption and decryption. That's why it's a little slow; all the traffic must pass through tor first to get to and from the remote .onion server torwallet.net does not have a private key of its own stored on it or in use for it. oh sorry, I don't know this is possible! Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
