...
Why would a multi billion dollar conglomerate like Microsoft have to pander to such an insignificant currency as Bitcoin and such a small minority of users like us Bitcoiners?
Because it costs them nearly nothing, far less than they hope to get from (admittedly) nearly-irrelevant contingent like you Bitcoiners. So they're using a payment processor. So what? They immediately convert fiat, we know!  They're definitely not hurting or needy for these measly sales. I'm pretty sure they're way smarter than you, and know a thing or two about tech and business, than NotLambChop. Large profits result from series of small profits. That's how money is made. Now go play your new vidya. So answer me this, NotLambChop. Why bother adding it as a payment? Apple, Amazon, and Google haven't done it yet. Very curious of company as successful as their's to just add it. Adding Bitcoin won't make them any real profit, Why add it? Think deeper, this is a Multi Billion dollar company, and please don't retort with "it costs them nothing".  I think you're asking a little too much  |
|
|
|
...
There exist many ways to implement an internet packet transmission/communication protocol. TCP/IP protocol is one.
In the same way, there are many implementations of cryptographic value transmission protocols. The Bitcoin (BTC) protocol is one.
For reasons of network effect it happens that in each case only one eventually "win" and becomes the standard protocol.
I and many here are invested in the Bitcoin (BTC) protocol, the only one with any kind of significant network effect.
Lol, so you've invested in TCP/IP? How much are the owners of TCP/IP getting for their investment, and who do I owe money to for using it? Everything has a significant network effect, until it doesn't. Otherwise all the shitcoiners would be farting through silk by nao. Invested in TCP/IP  No, unfortunately as you probably know that is not possible else one could've made a killing, really. So far the Bitcoin network effect is still strong so anything you say is fabulation & FUD. Impressive argumentation though, not quite convincing but certainly up to your standards  |
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin is very similar to TCP/IP, and its network effect much, much stronger.
Except you didn't invest in TCP/IP, which is as free to use as Bitcoin code. You invested in We've had that discussion before. You don't get it, we get it. What a well-reasoned & elegantly stated argument. Allow me to counter: No U! If you have nothing to say, simply don't say it.
Let me break it down for you There exist many ways to implement an internet packet transmission/communication protocol. TCP/IP protocol is one. In the same way, there are many implementations of cryptographic value transmission protocols. The Bitcoin (BTC) protocol is one. For reasons of network effect it happens that in each case only one eventually "win" and becomes the standard protocol. I and many here are invested in the Bitcoin (BTC) protocol, the only value transmission protocol with any kind of significant network effect. |
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin is very similar to TCP/IP, and its network effect much, much stronger.
Except you didn't invest in TCP/IP, which is as free to use as Bitcoin code. You invested in We've had that discussion before. You don't get it, we get it. |
|
|
|
How does BTC reach the general public though?
What event will push BTC forward?
Hardly anybody is interested.
People compare BTC to the internet in 1995, will we follow the same path or are we destined for failure?
This comparison is often touted but it's misguided. Bitcoin is the first example of blockchain technology put to use. Gopher is an early example of widespread usage of the internet. How many people still use 'gopher' ? Gopher was an application layer protocol. As far as I know it ran on top of the TCP/IP protocol which we still use to this day. Bitcoin is very similar to TCP/IP, and its network effect much, much stronger. |
|
|
|
|
The Buffett quote is several months old. Care to explain why it is relevant again?
|
|
|
|
...What don't I know?
Hard for me to say, stranger. What you should know is that, for the first time in a coon's age, we had two consecutive difficulty drops. Two. The only way for difficulty to drop is for hashrate to drop. The only reason for the hashrate to drop would be miners taking their gear offline. The only reason for miners to take gear offline is ... ? ..is it has become unprofitable for them. I get it  No, it has become unprofitable for some. Mining is a man's game nowadays. What's happening is the hobbyist are being driven out because they can't compete in the big leagues. |
|
|
|
...If bitcoin fails then it shows that they all will fail...
That... That's so inane it borders on brilliance. What in the world made you say that? 1. Bob made a coin that didn't work well. 2. ? ? ? 3. Therefore, all coins made consequently aren't going to work well either. Bitcoiner logic. Bitcoin is trust. The only relevant trust that exist in crypto atm is in Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails than 95% of the trust in crypto fails. When that happen good luck picking up the scraps and piece back together patchworks of trust. |
|
|
|
Rebound from what, even if 1 BTC = 1 USD Bitcoin still works and solves a problem.
Seriously bro you are not that naive are you? I should have self moderated this thread for stupidity like this! He's right. Here's the thing. You, and everyone like you, need to stop looking at the market price of Bitcoin. Do you realize that the whole "market" thing is just a bunch of speculators and hoarders playing a gambling / betting game? It literally has NOTHING to do with what Bitcoin is. Or does. Bitcoin - the Protocol - the technology - the infrastructure - etc ... this is what Bitcoin is. The market price is a bunch of enthusiasts playing and hoarding in hopes of future riches. The bitcoin market is its own little world. Off to the side. "Over there" -----> <---- While bitcoin is over here, doing its thing. That's why its both relevant and intelligent to point out that Bitcoin could go to $1.00 and still be 100% transformative in the world. Because NOTHING changes "out there" if Bitcoin drops to $1.00. Bitcoin still solves a problem, provides myriads of services, and remains unaffected. Market price is irrelevant. $1.00 obviously wouldn't be the price if Bitcoin was starting to transform the world, but the point is simple: you shouldn't give a rats ass what the market price of Bitcoin is. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin in the real world, until the real world starts using Bitcoin. Then *organic* price will begin to rise. Right now? This $320 Bitcoin price is the Bitcoin community. Hoarding and playing their arbitrage. Whales playing their games. etc. Nobody else is using Bitcoin yet. So for now, the market price is irrelevant. And everyone needs to stop talking about it. -B- No he's wrong. And you're wrong. It's quite amazing really that it's nearly 2015 and you people still want to entertain that line of thought. The price of Bitcoin is arguably all that matters because it is reflective of the trust people have into it. We should all very much be concerned with what Bitcoin's price is. Now, is it possible to be confident and believe it is inevitable for the price to increase in the future? Of course, but there is no such thing as what you call *organic* price. The speculators/gamblers you so despise are the reason we have this "infrastructure". They are in fact very much part of this ecosystem and are vital to its survival. We owe most of the actual "organic" growth to them.   Bitcoin at 1$ doesn't work. It is neither transformative nor does it solve a problem, provide a service and much less "remains unaffected". At a 1$ market cap the network is not secure and therefore useless. We need Bitcoin to increase its market cap by several orders of magnitude before it can be of real use to people in the "real world". |
|
|
|
"This way the paper wallet has never touched a computer or a network, and as soon as you eject the device the private key is wiped from memory" This is not true. Anyone printing paper wallet should be careful of what printer they are using. Larger industrial printers have hard drives that record all spooled print data in some cases, especially older models. Most of them are also connected to the internet. Some of the newer models have data security or drive encryption installed by default but not all. Smaller personal and desktop printers that don't have hard drives may be ok. IMO dedicated hardware wallets are the better option. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/digital-photocopiers-loaded-with-secrets/Is Trezor a single address that is reused? no trezor has bip32 HD wallet |
|
|
|
Monero is junk.
I am convinced, by facts and logic, that it is the best investment on the planet at this time. If it goes lower, it becomes even better. Fact: U.N. estimates global black market at 2 tn USD in 2012. Fact: PQ=MV Fact: Cryptonote is the only dark transaction protocol providing useful levels of unlinkability and untraceability. Fact: XMR is the leading cryptonote coin by orders of magnitude in liquidity. Fact: XMR is not usable by non-technical persons without trusting a web wallet today, but will be when GUI, DB, and multi-sig are officially released. Logic: Dark markets will adopt the best usable privacy and hence PQ is assured to approach some fraction of 2tn Fact: Multinational corporations require to maintain secrecy in their internal cross-border transactions. Logic: When XMR liquidity is high enough, it will be adopted by multinational corporations for internal cross-border transactions Fact: Nation-states and the central banks which own them seek to enslave the planet, taking control of financial assets at will. Logic: Wealth will migrate to dark storage, and when XMR has sufficient liquidity, it will be the dominant form of dark storage. There is a clear three stage path from miniscule to gigantic, each step of which bears a fundamental inevitability. It is possible although unlikely for an alternative dark ledger to take the lead, but until then, XMR has the most asymmetric risk/return in the history of finance. The points you made and their relevance are questionable, but even if we accept them all: -Dark Wallet is being developed for BTC. Once that works there is no point at all in adopting a lower liquidity lower confidence altcoin that will basically be a clone of BTC. -Monero shares the same problems of Proof of Work coins (including BTC of course) so if BTC dies because of that (or any reason at all intrinsic to BTC), Monero is no different. If BTC survives and Dark Wallet can be used for anonymity on BTC, Monero will not have a purpose anymore. I'm not certain dark wallet can provide the same level of anonymity as Monero does. |
|
|
|
...
Those twin girls are just so nasty and repulsive to look at.
... That pic just blew me away the first time I saw it. Everything about it, down to harsh flash shot with contrast and saturation cranked up, the nasty palate, the way it's composed (like an engineering drawing with multiple projections). And the pretty_but_eVol thing. 13-yr.-old little sisters from hell you're an idiot but goddamn that was funny |
|
|
|
For example lets assume someone decides to use a Ubuntu 14.4 VM image pre-configured to run bitcoind automatically. That person starts the VM, logs into a ssh shell, and then issues a bitcoind command to create a new wallet. This a logical user flow, but it also means the system has very little entropy. In this case everything about the system configuration is known ahead of time (it is a pre-configured VM image with known virtual hardware) and the user inputted a minimal amount of new information to capture (even the bitcoind command is known and can be easily guessed). About the only random information the user adds is their personal id/pw, but those might be quite weak because the user figures they are running on a secure home network. In this situation that machine has very little true entropy to use in private key or HD wallet generation. At the same time that key might have a lifetime of decades, during which an attacker can try combinations.
i find this fascinating. so you're saying that even with a perfect RNG, which is software based afaik, unless it has an excellent source of randomness (such as mouse movement, static off embedded chips, etc) it won't generate truly random privkeys? how does Armory then create secure deterministic wallets then? how would one generate the required entropy from the old offline pc's used to install such a program? the usual method is to just install Armory and go right to wallet creation. even those methods are not absent of troubles http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/14/on-making-high-entropy-bitcoin-paper-wallets/http://www.contravex.com/2014/07/17/proof-that-mycelium-knows-how-to-make-a-better-rng-for-its-entropy-dongle-and-isnt/Second link has a great discussion log about the potential problems of hardware generated entropy I use trezor but from my impression from a lot of reading is dice are the way to go for fool-proof generation of entropy yeah, dice is clearly the safest way (as long as they aren't loaded!) how does Trezor generate entropy? I would think Trezor would use some sort of method to grab the current dateTime in ticks/seconds to use as one source of entropy. Multiple sources of entropy (that are likely unpredictable) the better. Keyboard strokes, mouse movements like you mentioned. I wonder if you could use the current CPU temperature to the first or second decimal place as a source of entropy. when you generate the Trezor master seed, are you plugged into the pc from which to grab entropy? Yes, you are plugged in. Is there a way to provide your own self generated seed to Trezor, or do you have to use their code when plugged in? At least the code itself is auditable, but it's not clear to me if the code generates the HD seed itself, of if the code merely provides some amount of randomness which the hardware then uses to create a seed in an unknown and thus not auditable manner. Yes, it appears you can input your own dice generated seed although it is seemingly not available from the myTrezor interface. I am in no way an expert on the matter but from what I understand the code generates the HD seed using randomness provided by a combination of the hardware RNG & the computer's own entropy. The code itself can not generate entropy. |
|
|
|
For example lets assume someone decides to use a Ubuntu 14.4 VM image pre-configured to run bitcoind automatically. That person starts the VM, logs into a ssh shell, and then issues a bitcoind command to create a new wallet. This a logical user flow, but it also means the system has very little entropy. In this case everything about the system configuration is known ahead of time (it is a pre-configured VM image with known virtual hardware) and the user inputted a minimal amount of new information to capture (even the bitcoind command is known and can be easily guessed). About the only random information the user adds is their personal id/pw, but those might be quite weak because the user figures they are running on a secure home network. In this situation that machine has very little true entropy to use in private key or HD wallet generation. At the same time that key might have a lifetime of decades, during which an attacker can try combinations.
i find this fascinating. so you're saying that even with a perfect RNG, which is software based afaik, unless it has an excellent source of randomness (such as mouse movement, static off embedded chips, etc) it won't generate truly random privkeys? how does Armory then create secure deterministic wallets then? how would one generate the required entropy from the old offline pc's used to install such a program? the usual method is to just install Armory and go right to wallet creation. even those methods are not absent of troubles http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/14/on-making-high-entropy-bitcoin-paper-wallets/http://www.contravex.com/2014/07/17/proof-that-mycelium-knows-how-to-make-a-better-rng-for-its-entropy-dongle-and-isnt/Second link has a great discussion log about the potential problems of hardware generated entropy I use trezor but from my impression from a lot of reading is dice are the way to go for fool-proof generation of entropy yeah, dice is clearly the safest way (as long as they aren't loaded!) how does Trezor generate entropy? I would think Trezor would use some sort of method to grab the current dateTime in ticks/seconds to use as one source of entropy. Multiple sources of entropy (that are likely unpredictable) the better. Keyboard strokes, mouse movements like you mentioned. I wonder if you could use the current CPU temperature to the first or second decimal place as a source of entropy. when you generate the Trezor master seed, are you plugged into the pc from which to grab entropy? Yes, you are plugged in. |
|
|
|
For example lets assume someone decides to use a Ubuntu 14.4 VM image pre-configured to run bitcoind automatically. That person starts the VM, logs into a ssh shell, and then issues a bitcoind command to create a new wallet. This a logical user flow, but it also means the system has very little entropy. In this case everything about the system configuration is known ahead of time (it is a pre-configured VM image with known virtual hardware) and the user inputted a minimal amount of new information to capture (even the bitcoind command is known and can be easily guessed). About the only random information the user adds is their personal id/pw, but those might be quite weak because the user figures they are running on a secure home network. In this situation that machine has very little true entropy to use in private key or HD wallet generation. At the same time that key might have a lifetime of decades, during which an attacker can try combinations.
i find this fascinating. so you're saying that even with a perfect RNG, which is software based afaik, unless it has an excellent source of randomness (such as mouse movement, static off embedded chips, etc) it won't generate truly random privkeys? how does Armory then create secure deterministic wallets then? how would one generate the required entropy from the old offline pc's used to install such a program? the usual method is to just install Armory and go right to wallet creation. even those methods are not absent of troubles http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/14/on-making-high-entropy-bitcoin-paper-wallets/http://www.contravex.com/2014/07/17/proof-that-mycelium-knows-how-to-make-a-better-rng-for-its-entropy-dongle-and-isnt/Second link has a great discussion log about the potential problems of hardware generated entropy I use trezor but from my impression from a lot of reading is dice are the way to go for fool-proof generation of entropy yeah, dice is clearly the safest way (as long as they aren't loaded!) how does Trezor generate entropy? From my understanding an ARM hardware RNG and a combination of entropy derived from the device it is plugged in (computer). Adequate? I believe so, except there is hardly any way to audit this "randomness" The issue being that the device could've been tampered with and essentially provide a backdoor to your private key. On that matter I do believe there is a way to provide your own seed. This thread is making me paranoid |
|
|
|
For example lets assume someone decides to use a Ubuntu 14.4 VM image pre-configured to run bitcoind automatically. That person starts the VM, logs into a ssh shell, and then issues a bitcoind command to create a new wallet. This a logical user flow, but it also means the system has very little entropy. In this case everything about the system configuration is known ahead of time (it is a pre-configured VM image with known virtual hardware) and the user inputted a minimal amount of new information to capture (even the bitcoind command is known and can be easily guessed). About the only random information the user adds is their personal id/pw, but those might be quite weak because the user figures they are running on a secure home network. In this situation that machine has very little true entropy to use in private key or HD wallet generation. At the same time that key might have a lifetime of decades, during which an attacker can try combinations.
i find this fascinating. so you're saying that even with a perfect RNG, which is software based afaik, unless it has an excellent source of randomness (such as mouse movement, static off embedded chips, etc) it won't generate truly random privkeys? how does Armory then create secure deterministic wallets then? how would one generate the required entropy from the old offline pc's used to install such a program? the usual method is to just install Armory and go right to wallet creation. even those methods are not absent of troubles http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/14/on-making-high-entropy-bitcoin-paper-wallets/http://www.contravex.com/2014/07/17/proof-that-mycelium-knows-how-to-make-a-better-rng-for-its-entropy-dongle-and-isnt/Second link has a great discussion log about the potential problems of hardware generated entropy I use trezor but my impression from a lot of reading is dice are the way to go for fool-proof generation of entropy |
|
|
|
|
I don't believe so. My impression is most of Coinbase's liquidity comes from its merchant business. Certainly they are not buying on exchange anymore.
|
|
|
|
3D MACD is negative again. 2014 was truly a great year for the "value" of bitcoin, but was terrible year for its price.
I think we will be in the high $200's, IE 270-290's before the end of 2014.
what if they are waiting for the sell wall to build and buy up quick, could it turn MACD positive Yeah the 3D MACD could reverse, but the overall morphology of the recent 3D MACD isn't the same as it was in the previous bubbles where each box on the histogram increased from the previous until its decline. I think a lot of TA becomes completely useless in the cases of market manipulation and big news, both of which could explain the current MACD and any reversal if it were to occur. Most recently when the 3D MACD goes red, it's red for about 4 months...no bueno You can't have it both ways though. Either the 3D MACD is misrepresentative and "useless" or it is not. The historical trend after it turns red could turn out to be as irrelevant to predict the future as this turn to green ended being |
|
|
|
My prediction: NY will go surprisingly easy and their policies will foster more mainstream use of native Bitcoin.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
Please forgive me, but is this not just a bit naive in that it discounts the influence of the corporations for whom Bitcoin presents a challenge to their profit model? Bitcoin is (at least) a disruptive technology that drives away the cost and friction of financial transactions. NY is heavy with corporations that make all their wealth from creating and managing that friction. Some of these even build skyscrapers. Do we imagine that these companies are not the driving influence for the anti-innovation pro-centralization regulation efforts there and that instead it is government doing this "on its own"? The heads of government institutions in charge of dealing with Bitcoin, when asked by the US Senate "What new laws do you need?" answered "None, Sir. We are doing quite well with the existing laws." The regulations are not for the benefit of government. The origin is anti-competitive. Connect the dots, draw the timelines. Here are a few of them: Nov '13: http://www.coindesk.com/senate-bitcoin-hearing-legitimacy-challenges-virtual-currencies/April '14 http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/204733-mastercard-lobbying-on-bitcoinJuly '14 http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-draft-of-bitlicense-for-bitcoin-businesses/“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tsu I think rocks suggestion is more reasonable. The first proposition was a slap to the face with such over-reaching regulations that whatever would be put in effect in the revised draft would seem "softer". It is much easier to reign in firms with a softer stance and then slowly but surely tighten the reins. If they go along with the outrageous models suggested in the first draft then most Bitcoin companies will simply forbid NY users from accessing their service and ignore the regulations. If that happens then Lawsky & his team will find themselves in all sort of legal shitstorm for infringing all kind of NY state customer protection laws. This will simply result in encouraging use of "dark" markets and unregulated exchanges which is certainly not "desirable" from the point of view of the regulators. |
|
|
|
|
USD vs Paypal. Is there competition?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
