It's definitifly not possible for any transaction, but nessasary for a trust system to make any difference. A closed trust system without really new signers is not different to a system based on one signature.On the other hand it 'd have to be impossible for new voters to enter the pool to keep fraudsters out ...

Even if I could trust the original pool with 1000$ there is no reason I could trust them with 1 million unless I could add new voters. Adding new pools isn't possible either so that system doesn't work. Adding Merchants does.

No, there have been enough cases of people loosing btc by sending funds from a wallet and deleting the change adress. If you send partial funds a new adress is generated for change. People belived funds are still on original adress and delete wallet because they have a backup at home ...

The blockchain contains far more information than is required to operate a wallet. Nobody is interrested in transactions that happend years ago so that information is kinda useless to the average user. A trusted summary of all important/active balances after the n-th block seems sufficient to me to work with all new blocks after than n-th.

I doubt that this is a new idea, but otherwise I haven't stumbled uppon that yet ...

Yes, I belive 1 LTC could be more worth than 1 bitcoin since price depends on prices of new coins and there are more BTC that LTC mined yet. BTC won't keep its 95% marketshare of crypto so that value will go to alternatives like litecoin.


No, that's a far to simple view and it's a Sellers market.
More mining power of network means higher costs to mine. Miners are not willing to sell below what they belive it's worth and their cost of a new coin is a good indicator for value. Marginal costs are just a fraction of total cost so they keep mining and they rather keep them than selling at loss.


BTW: Markets can be very stupid for a very long time and from all markets I know bitcoin is among the stupidest so don't exept it to behave rational.

That's not a trust problem anymore. It's against their best interest to forge transactions since this will make their stolen btc and especially Asics worthless. I only have to "trust" someone if there is some benefit for him to screw me. (or is not capable)

It doesn't take much effort to add new 50 servers and get enough relative votes on a pool. By adding just 10 servers you could freeze funds and blackmail people. It's too expensive to run 100 servers for a system that would work on 10 but relativly easy to add 100 for a short period of time. Limiting new servers doesn't work either.

Outside bitcoin it's easy to make contracts and stuff, but since goverments are atm openly stealing funds so that doesn't work here. If they get outlawed, blockchain will still work but these contracts get useless.

Remember how many btc-services got hacked, frauded, closed, ...
Just because everyone is doing something it doesn't make it right or safe. Online wallets have very limited advantages but huge risks. Nobody has to trust them and everyonw who does with more than change is stupid. I fear that bitcoin will get to big to run your own client and we will have to trust some online wallets. A seperate blockchain would solve that.


What differs my idea from all existing methods is it doesn't require trust or even computer safety. F.e. comparing security of safes with and without insurance and sticking only to mechanical details is pointless, since a shitty safe with a solvent insurance is far safer than Ft.Knox.

... try to avoid abbreviations.

Mt.GOX = Magic The Gathering Online Exchange (really!)

It doesn't require much hard or software knowledge to figure it out from here. 

Yes, but it's kinda useless.
If communities (goverments) wanted a useful way to pay electronically they could simpl built a copycat of visa and it's done. Mining is a necessarity, not a benefit. It's needed for crypto, but not for goverment money.


Dafuq?
As long they are freely exchangeable there is no practical difference. Money is far more than just values of labours since I can exchange gold for money and gold for labour. Is this just a definition or is there more to your statement?

As far as I understand that link descripes an idea for online wallet operators to be safer from hacks. That doesn't solve the trust problem at all since I now have to trust a pool instead the operator. Without a method to define who is able to vote your idea isn't complete and for myself I haven't found a fair AND safe way to define that. One compromized server plus some votes and it's done. Freezing for blackmail or directly.

Nevertheless it's still my risk that the system works as a whole. Trust is one issue among many others, f.e technical problems, laws, ...
On my idea none of these are my problem. If it works fine, if not we pull the plug and I get all my btc back plus free stuff.

BTW: Please write more/less than just one link, nobody will follow a topic on several sites.

Scamcoin sounds like Bitcoin, but it isn't.
All those services require trusting them with more money than they would get if they scam you. Once funds are on the alternative chain merchants will get them sometime. It's like a amazon coupon but without the risk of amazon going broke.

They could sell BTC for cash and become THE place to buy bitcoin.

There is no competition in BTC4Cash and they're unlikely to loose that monopoly if they move fast enough. AML and every future law on bitcoin will make it impossible for small enterprises to enter that market. Bitcoin-24 has already been killed by an overmotivated prosecutor and it requires a big law department to fight off legal attacks. Western Union is used to scam people so they have that department.

WU has in contrast to Paypal, Visa, and Banks no other bitcoin threatened business model that faces to be total obsolete by bitcoin. They transfer funds for profit. I belive WU could be one of the best performing stocks of the century if they get on bitcoin early enough. Or among the worst if they don't.

Todays bitcoin protokoll isn't sufficient for a mayor currency at all. With billions of transactions and enormous sums involved transactions would take for ever and generate a huge amount of data. It's already too slow to pay for soda and too big to download.

My idea:
A trusted chain for fast payments, the old system for savings, private transactions and huge payments

To get money into the system transfer funds to a gateway adress and get them credited on alternative chain at same adress. Keys of gateway published, but transfers from that adress banned by the bitcoin network ecept to one payout adress operated by "Merchants".

Transactions within the new network are signed as usual but handled by Merchants. Funds can only be sent to Merchants adress in exchange for goods. No private transactions, no way to get BTC out if Merchants don't agree. You can get your soda instantly but no BTC change. No fees or inflation, but they can freeze funds and undo/ignore transactions.


Why could we trust them?
Transfers from the gateway adress will be limited by the bitcoin network. It allows only transfert to the payout adress and in order to get funds there the foundation has to sign it. Once a day or even longer periods.
An online blockexplorer enables you to check your balance and transactions, if there is a transaction you didn't sign inform the foundation and they won't release the next transaction unless that issue is solved.
If they can't solve it we update our bitcoinclients to enable transfers from the gateway adress and send all funds back to their origin.

Why could they trust us?
Pulling the plug would kill bitcoin if there is no justification for it. Even the foundation hasn't the power to freeze Merchant funds since 51% have the power to update to a new client and enable an alternative payout adress. Keys of gateway adress must be public.

Why could they trust them?
Isn't our problem. Payout adress could be signed by several merchants or they could sign contracts or ...

Who pays for it?
Only Merchants. If there is one penny taken from customers to pay for it we'll shut em down. They profit from a fast and very cheap payment option in their shops and that's enough. Compare that with VISA ...


I think it is far better to implement an official FTC (fast transaction chain) into bitcoin client than mt.gox green adresses or trusting a single/some company(s)/state(s)/species with that much power. If here is enough positive feedback I'll work out some details.

After reading the headline "Deposit Haircuts are Both Inevitable and the Right Thing to Do" and no sarcasm I belive that guy is an idiot. No need to read  ...

That's easy.

Just add a second crypto and the loop wouldn't be such a problem. ATM every bigger transaction effects the exchange rate and every change triggers greed/fear. That greed/fear generates vola and vola is the reason merchants stay out of crypto.

A bigger transaktion on BTC pushes panikers into LTC and vice versa. If the big money is smart money they will already have a 2nd position in LTC to sell after LTC/BTC rises. Panikers are either idiots and loose their money or stop generating vola on Crypto/Fiat.
Less vola means more people in crypto ...
After a while vola will be reduced and value increased.

To stop idiots from panik moves to USD simply add a payout fee or delay and make LTC/BTC exchange for free.

Think about it.

Yes, but it's very stupid.

Even if the Euro failes it is very likely to make a huge loss due to goverment regulations. After the german hyperinflation dept and savings got different exchange rates. There also might be a new tax on property and there is no way homes keep their value.

Since you probably loose your job and savings there is no way you could pay tax, loan and food and loose everything. Even if you had enough cash to pay for the loan it would be cheaper to buy homes at market price instead paying off the higher mortage.

That's because Berlin is the only city on earth where you could pay with BTC in several offline stores. BTC are easy to get online or offline and there is a real life community.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/26/bitcoins-gain-currency-in-berlin

I don't belive this concentration will stay that high when other cities start accepting crypto offline.

Dear gst,


Sorry, but that is plain stupid. (Sorry for hard words)

1)Ponzi-scheme
Bitcoin and Charles Ponzi have nothing in common. It might be called stupid to invest or fraudulent , but a Ponzi scheme is a specific kind of fraud. It doesn't fit ...
 
2)There are no real companies involved in Bitcoin yet.
Bitcoins market cap is so low that I wouldn't even consider investing in a stock of that size. But even if, there is just mt.gox to consider. The most professional bitcoin companys full name is Magic: the Gathering Online Exchange ...

3) Investing in currencies is stupid
If you belive BTC will be used at a "way to pay online" it has to grow to at least 1000USD in order to be even noticed by big companies. Amazons sales per year are more than 30times bitcoins market cap so there must be enormous growth untill it could handle such volume.

Even if BTC couldn't be used for legal trades it's likely to be used on drugs. BTC is so much better than cash so it will be used to pay for a share of todays 500billion/year turnover on illegal drugs, so there must be enormous growth untill it could handle such volume.


If you'd belive that BTC will totaly fail it'd be ok to say so, but you said you belive in crypto for online transactions. It seems you haven't understood BTC economics yet and that is the basis for all serious "LTC is better than BTC" argumentation. Technicalities beyond "it's different" don't matter at all.

BTW: I don't agree on your argumentation on technicalities either, but that 'd be an awful long post.

PS: I'd recomend you to think more about btc economics. When you reach a certain level you will get the LTC idea on your own. And that includes "LTC is better than other altcoins". Any questions?

It would make life even more complicated. Every customer in BTC already gets its own adress so it's easier to track transactions. There'd be no real advantage between generating one or 5 adresses since you'd have to give 5 different prices and check 5 adresses.

That might work for donations,but you would have to inform people that you accept donations in altcoin and there would be lot's of idiots who donate the wrong altcoin to a charity that doesn't accept that one but has a adress that does. Or to the wrong adress like spikey ...

Bitcoin will never be the one and only crypto currency. Todays 95% marketshare of BTC won't last long, so when investing in crypto you get far higher returns (at much higher risk) on altcoins than BTC. LTC is the most common altcoin and already established as BTC's little brother. When btc holder start diversiving they will rather buy LTC instead of every other altcoin.

So there is no new risk. Nobody knows if PPC's POS will work for ever, but cloning a already "proven" technology is safer than inventing new one. I liked the idea of DVC but it failed and everyone invested it it will loose. It's a good idea to risk some money at new crypto, but that isn't for diversiving more than 5% of your portfolio. And the rest goes to ...?

Scrypt will be a total different mining enviroment. Once it's really established there will be specialized chips for BTC and specialized chips for scrypt. This makes LTC more independent (=better) and protects it against big goverment attacks. PPC would be ideal for that, but it isn't ready yet.

Bitcoin isn't superior enough to altcoins to justfy a 95% market cap. It might not go down in Fiat/BTC, but in Altcoin/BTC it's doomed to fall.

Why so complicated? It'd be hard to agree on equivalents to every new algorithm, and gh/s for proof of stake coins just represents the value of new coins, and with merged mining ...
It'd be much simpler to go by market capitalisation. Every crypto over 1Mio USD should get it's subforum.

That's the most irelevant difference between LTC/BTC.
LTC will provide diversification and that's why LTC might be even 1:1 on BTC. When some big players move at the only crypto it generates vola and panic/greed. Too much vola makes a currency useless.

On a multi crypto enviroment panic sellers can move to the alternative crypto(s) and the overall market vola on crypto stays lower. But don't worry, one 50% less volatile bitcoin at 30% market cap is definitively more worth than 1 BTC of todays 95% cap.