|
I'm anxious to hear about the revised Lawsky regulations tomorrow.
Would I prefer they don't exist? Of course, but I expect they will be significantly "softer" than the original submission and this is certainly something that should bring some much needed confidence to this market.
Obviously they will not matter in the long run but I expect they will have a positive effect in the short to medium term. Lawsky was quoted in an interview recently as saying he expects Wall Street "will rush into this" when the field is properly regulated and as much as everyone dislike the idea of "regulating" Bitcoin I am very much in favor of getting cozy with Wall Street.
Only once they swallow the pill will they realise it is a poison that will kill them from the inside.
|
|
|
|
|
Good or bad there's been a fair share of Bitcoin talk in the media lately. If you're one to keep track of the "bitcoin" word on Twitter there seems to be an unusual amount of Bitcoin related tweets today.
Even more encouraging is we've reached this stage where people are calling the death of Bitcoin all while the world's fiat economy is in the shitter.
This rally is gonna be glorious.
|
|
|
|
yes, this is exciting [–]ryancarnated 6 points an hour ago
Sort of. When I was hired, we didn't really have a concrete plan. We just recognized the enormous potential of bitcoin technology at reddit.
Why reddit? Because reddit is the largest phyle in the sense of Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. There is no community in the world more ideally suited to adopting decentralized, internet-native technology like bitcoin. It's a perfect match. If we do a good job building this technology, there should be next to nothing for us to maintain. The software will all be open-source, and powered by decentralized technologies. reddit servers will play a very minor, and non-critical role by facilitating the user experience.
this guy, he gets it. |
|
|
|
Ryan Charles, via Reddit: reddit has the potential to make bitcoin mainstream. There is no better company in the world to do this than reddit.
and Bitcoin technology will ultimately become integral to reddit. We've had some internal brainstorming about ways we could integrate - the possibilities are enormous.
To which I asked: "Bitcoin technology" meaning what, exactly? Can you say whether you're going to be using the bitcoin currency and the bitcoin blockchain, versus creating a completely separate currency/blockchain for Reddit's digital assets needs?
And Ryan's response: Great question! First of all, see Oleg Andreev's excellent article "The universe wants one money": http://blog.oleganza.com/post/54121516413/the-universe-wants-one-moneyCompeting with bitcoin wouldn't make any sense. Rather than compete, we want to build on and with the bitcoin community. We will not create a currency that competes with bitcoin. Instead, we will leverage the blockchain (The Blockchain, i.e., the bitcoin blockchain), and quite possibly also sidechains, in order to build our technology. We are not making an altcoin. We are not making an altcoin. We are not making an altcoin. Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2owj55/welcome_drew_ryan_mike_daniel_joe_dave_david/cmr5kjtReddit tip coming. |
|
|
|
^ Is Coinbase as ill-informed as I am? Why don't they forgo waiting for confirms  Did you at least do your reading? 6 confirms is no guarantee. its just an arbitrary 'acceptable risk' metric that coinbase has chosen. It could just as well be 4 or 13 or 2. However, if you grok zeroconf, you'll see why it can quite satisfactorily be zero. If you are receiving a million dollars from an untrusted third party then sure, you might decide you want, say 10 confirmations. If you are sending $100 to your mate, or buying a coffee, or transferring from your savings paper wallet to your spending bread wallet, or surfing silk road 2 or 3 or whatever its up to now... all of these are pretty much 100% candidates for zeroconf i.e. within seconds you can be sure enough. In fairness though, there are a whole bunch of use cases in between. That is where it comes down to a bit of personal preference, if you look at a comparable (amount/trust) transaction in the existing monetary system then I would say btc is pretty compelling in terms of speed, though of course you may disagree! You can insist that you want 6 confirms for *every* transaction, but I don't think its fair to claim that its absolutely necessary, and that this negates the 'bitcoin is fast' argument. If you draw the chart of "confidence transaction is legit" vs time, even the first confirmation adds relatively little to the already high probability that the transaction is just fine. Comparable to the chance your $100 bill is fake? Or that you aren't going to get a chargeback? or that a check is going to bounce? I dunno but it wouldn't surprise me if zeroconf came out ahead in terms of risk. *shrugs* because Lambtroll likes drawings  |
|
|
|
Same here. what am I doing wrong? I guess you need to follow him on Twitter. Yup that would be likely the problem. Never was a problem before.  "only the priviledged can access my knowledge"-cypherdoc |
|
|
|
Denial and butthurt, tools of the desperate Bitcoin cultists. Enjoy your gif  Comparing Bitcoin to TCP/IP implies that other coins (providers) can't use TCP/IP (the Bitcoin protocol). The fact of the matter is they can and do Your dead brain logic in a nutshell. That hole you are digging, it is deep. |
|
|
|
|
Slander and pedantry, the tools of the desperate trolls.
|
|
|
|
This is degenerating into semantics pedantry. If you don't like me calling this technology "Bitcoin protocol," fine, call it whatever. The point is you didn't invest in the technology any more than AOL invested in TCP/IP.
Bitcoin relies on this technology, just like AOL relied on TCP/IP, but that's it.
No, Bitcoin is the technology. It relies on no other protocol for transfer of value than its own. AOL is not a technology, it is a service or a platform built on top of the TCP/IP technology, like Coinbase is built on top of the Bitcoin technology Are you intentionally being obtuse?
|
|
|
|
Doesn't take much foresight to imagine all those problems being solved in due time. You people sound like those who were saying the internet would never scale in 1992.
and btw, tcp/ip v4 has the fatal flaw too, namely extremely inadequate addressing space, known since 30 years ago. you know what? we learned to live with that instead of replacing it with a superior tech. because expensive to replace everything. with every passing day, it is less and less likely that bitcoin will ever be replaced.
IP V6 will happen. It will take some time but eventually will get done. And there will be a replacement to that too at some point in the future. If you look at the history of the world you see all things go through this evolution cycle. This back and fourth is silly. My plain and simple point is bitcoin has flaws that I don't think are being addressed fast enough making it more likely that it will be superseded by something else prior to it reaching a point where 1 BTC = $10,000 USD. Yes, "all those problems being solved in due time.", but it may not be by bitcoin. Its naive to believe that bitcoin will retain its dominate position in the space forever and ever. Its evolved only slightly from its initial experimental proof of concept launch. When a viable solution to these "problems" arises it will be implemented into Bitcoin way before it spawns a competing crypto. The network, the market, and any invested parties have entrenched interest into the Bitcoin blockchain and no incentive to allow a successor. They will put any required resources to use in order to adapt Bitcoin and maintain that status quo. This is the strength of the network effect. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin (the blockchain you're invested in) is not TCP/IP, it's more like America Online. Huge now, but it doesn't own the sourcecode/Bitcoin protocol. Just like other service providers started using TCP/IP, other coins can use the Bitcoin protocol.
Oh no, you are confusing idea with an implementation. There were hundreds network protocol implementations, anybody can take the idea of "how do I package the data and send it over the wire", but only one is the true king; others found their niches. It applies to bitcoin perfectly - there will be only one true blockchain, and there will be many niche cryptos, but it is already impossible to dethrone bitcoin - it has rooted too deep. AOL had nothing to do with tcp/ip or internet, it was a user-facing service built on top of the protocol. Say MtGox or coinbase. The analogy Bitcoin/AOL is certainly better than Bitcoin/TCP/IP one. Comparing Bitcoin to TCP/IP implies that other coins (providers) can't use TCP/IP (the Bitcoin protocol). The fact of the matter is they can and do  Other coins are not providers. What other coin use Bitcoin? Don't make me explain what the long word "analogy" means. It certainly doesn't mean "identical" or "equal." Bitcoin protocol is not your blockchain. Bitcoin protocol is a convenient name for the protocol devised by Satoshi, used by SHA256 clonecoins. Are you intentionally being obtuse? The protocol being discussed is the Bitcoin blockchain implementation and its units. There could be thousands of TCP/IP clones/implementation but only one implementation is supported. That's why the TCP/IP analogy fails, and AOL is a better fit. AOL relied on TCP/IP for its business. Bitcoin (your particular blockchain, your "implementation" of Satoshi's technology) similarly relies on the Bitcoin protocol No, Bitcoin blockchain is its own protocol. It doesn't rely on a protocol. It is an implementation of different technologies that create a standard for value transfer. Clonecoins can create different implementations using the same technologies but they become entirely different protocols of value transfer. Coinbase relies on the Bitcoin protocol for its business. Coinbase = AOL. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin (the blockchain you're invested in) is not TCP/IP, it's more like America Online. Huge now, but it doesn't own the sourcecode/Bitcoin protocol. Just like other service providers started using TCP/IP, other coins can use the Bitcoin protocol.
Oh no, you are confusing idea with an implementation. There were hundreds network protocol implementations, anybody can take the idea of "how do I package the data and send it over the wire", but only one is the true king; others found their niches. It applies to bitcoin perfectly - there will be only one true blockchain, and there will be many niche cryptos, but it is already impossible to dethrone bitcoin - it has rooted too deep. AOL had nothing to do with tcp/ip or internet, it was a user-facing service built on top of the protocol. Say MtGox or coinbase. The analogy Bitcoin/AOL is certainly better than Bitcoin/TCP/IP one. Comparing Bitcoin to TCP/IP implies that other coins (providers) can't use TCP/IP (the Bitcoin protocol). The fact of the matter is they can and do Other coins are not providers. What other coin use Bitcoin? Don't make me explain what the long word "analogy" means. It certainly doesn't mean "identical" or "equal." Bitcoin protocol is not your blockchain. Bitcoin protocol is a convenient name for the protocol devised by Satoshi, used by SHA256 clonecoins. Are you intentionally being obtuse? The protocol being discussed is the Bitcoin blockchain implementation and its units. There could be thousands of TCP/IP clones/implementation but only one implementation is supported. |
|
|
|
and btw, tcp/ip v4 has the fatal flaw too, namely extremely inadequate addressing space, known since 30 years ago. you know what? we learned to live with that instead of replacing it with a superior tech. because expensive to replace everything. with every passing day, it is less and less likely that bitcoin will ever be replaced.
Are you suggesting that Crypto 2.0 will be IPv6? Sure. No, he's suggesting that Bitcoin v. x.xx will be IPv6 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin (the blockchain you're invested in) is not TCP/IP, it's more like America Online. Huge now, but it doesn't own the sourcecode/Bitcoin protocol. Just like other service providers started using TCP/IP, other coins can use the Bitcoin protocol.
Oh no, you are confusing idea with an implementation. There were hundreds network protocol implementations, anybody can take the idea of "how do I package the data and send it over the wire", but only one is the true king; others found their niches. It applies to bitcoin perfectly - there will be only one true blockchain, and there will be many niche cryptos, but it is already impossible to dethrone bitcoin - it has rooted too deep. AOL had nothing to do with tcp/ip or internet, it was a user-facing service built on top of the protocol. Say MtGox or coinbase. The analogy Bitcoin/AOL is certainly better than Bitcoin/TCP/IP one. Comparing Bitcoin to TCP/IP implies that other coins (providers) can't use TCP/IP (the Bitcoin protocol). The fact of the matter is they can and do Other coins are not providers. What other coin use Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Doesn't take much foresight to imagine all those problems being solved in due time. You people sound like those who were saying the internet would never scale in 1992.
I never said the internet would never scale in 1992... I never said you did. I'm arguing that your claim will appear similar in hindsight 10-20 years from now. |
|
|
|
...
What fundamental issues?
-difficult to use for non-techies -obscenely high block reward (inflation rate) -slow confirm time necessitating cludgy workarounds -blockchain bloat Just to name a few. You are greatly underestimating the force of network effect and protocols.
TCP/IP is one thing that has yet to be replaced by a 2.0.
Bitcoin (the blockchain you're invested in) is not TCP/IP, it's more like America Online. It's huge now, but it doesn't own the sourcecode. Just like other service providers started using TCP/IP, other coins can use the Bitcoin protocol. Doesn't take much foresight to imagine all those problems being solved in due time. You people sound like those who were saying the internet would never scale in 1992. |
|
|
|
Why do people think that it's impossible for BTC to reach there? Not only limited to such factors as %s of gold, forex, stocks, equities, etc., but we must not forget that whenever the stagnancy of either miners or BTC will take place, some huge longs or shorts will take place for sure...
Even I hate it when someone says it's impossible as I'm too a firm believer that it will reach that for sure... Winklevoss brothers ain't much fools to say that BTC will be $1,00,000 one day...
I think Bitcoin will easily reach $10,000 one day, may not be for a few years as nobody can predict when mass adoption will occur. The only way btc wont reach the moon is if it's succeeded by a superior crypto currency (not very likely imho). I would argue that it is very likely that bitcoin will be succeeded by a superior crypto currency. Its a questions of when not if. Everything evolves and I cant think of a single thing that was not replaced by a 2.0. If "Satoshi" was still actively developing bitcoin I would expect it to retain its dominate position for quite some time. He is not. And he left pretty early after its birth. I don't think bitcoin is addressing its fundamental issues quick enough to not be replaced in the not so distant future. What fundamental issues? You are greatly underestimating the force of network effect and protocols. TCP/IP is one thing that has yet to be replaced by a 2.0. |
|
|
|
the REALLY big deal for Bitcoin in the past several months has been the tx volume increase. prior to that, there was a real question regarding widespread adoption. this increase bodes well for Bitcoins future. it cannot be interpreted in any other way.
and before the bears scream about intra-wallet tx's as being fake volume, i must remind you that those still have to pay miner fees thus boosting the overall mining economy and revenue. this is actually why it's important to keep all tx's on the main blockchain as opposed to offramping them to SC's.
We're not gonna start another debate here but this is plainly false. SC are in fact an opportunity to preserve miners tx fees revenues that could otherwise migrate to off-chain schemes. |
|
|
|
Yep, this guy doesn't even know the problem he's trying to solve... I guess.... devs gon dev  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
