The Bitcoin Foundation cannot simply change Bitcoin.
They are able to propose a change to the code of Bitcoin, however the miners must approve the changes in order for it to be adopted.
In the past the changes have been deemed "a good idea" and "good for bitcoin" so they have been approved by the miners (via a hardfork in the blockchain)
How many miners would have to agree? The main pool owners? Miners themselves? It isn't a question of a vote or how many people would have to agree, there would be a hard fork. Something called bitcoin with a 21 million coins limit would continue, and this new coin called something like inflate-a-coin where there was no limit to the number of coins would be created. Everyone who owned bitcoin at the time of the hard fork would also own the same number of coins on the inflate-a-coin fork. Many would sell their coins on the inflate-a-coin (IAC) fork causing the IAC price to drop and buy something that won't lose value each year, like bitcoin. In theory, EVERYONE could agree to switch to the IAC fork. In practice, a change like this would get very little support. This type of thread comes up quite often, it would be nice if someone just implemented some of these ideas and got them out of the way. Then the answer would be "look at X-coin" and see how it did in reality. Look at Freicoin for one example where the currency loses just under 5% of its value each year (akin to inflating it away). People might use it to transact, but who is going to use it as a store of value when there is another option? Likewise, IAC would be losing value each year. Some people might like that, most would realize that it is stupid to keep something that is losing value each year, so the people who were knowledgable would stick with the bitcoin fork, others would go with the IAC fork. |
|
|
|
Am I wrong in thinking Bitcoin is just a tulip bulb scenario in which an ever-increasing number of new investors is required to keep up the hype, and once there are no more greater fools left, it will crash and I will be rich at the expense of many people out there?
...
Yes. Look at the functionality and uses of bit coin - those provide real value. There is lots of documentation and articles about it. Here is a start, but there are a ton more: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101711220http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0There are many more discussed here on these forums and elsewhere that discuss the real value of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
This is a hard fork. Go ahead and code this change to fork the reference client, fork the blockchain, and start up your theft-coin and then see how many people follow to mine and use it.
Let us know when you have completed this task so we can all watch to see how it turns out.
If you really believe it, stop discussing it and actually do it. It won't be bitcoin, it will be some alt-coin, theft-coin that is pretty worthless in protecting people and their assets.
Chill! I'm just a kid in capable of doing right. Just here for discussion. It is perfectly chill. Just saying, if you think it is a good idea, just do it and see if it works in the real world! Few people will want a coin that can be stolen at any moment.  |
|
|
|
|
This is a hard fork. Go ahead and code this change to fork the reference client, fork the blockchain, and start up your theft-coin and then see how many people follow to mine and use it.
Let us know when you have completed this task so we can all watch to see how it turns out.
If you really believe it, stop discussing it and actually do it. It won't be bitcoin, it will be some alt-coin, theft-coin that is pretty worthless in protecting people and their assets.
|
|
|
|
The "idea" of Bitcoin is great but there are "holes". The Mt Gox debacle is a good example. The value of Bitcoin dropped by half when that happened and it was only a few years ago when Bitcoin dropped to around a single dollar
It was only a bit over 3 years ago that bitcoin reached dollar parity for the first time on its way up from zero. Blaming bitcoin for Gox is like blaming the the US Treasury because the local petrol station didn't lock it's safe and was robbed. The price of bitcoin isn't the most important thing as an indicator of success, the ecosystem and functionality is. |
|
|
|
|
Miners can include transactions or not. Some pools do not include any to decrease propagation time. It can also happen if there were no transactions to include, for example if blocks are found close together.
|
|
|
|
|
To answer the question, yes, it is case sensitive.
|
|
|
|
This is a bit silly considering anyone with access to money can put it anywhere. Gold, silver, cash ect. It also doesn't mean that you still won't owe your ex-spouse the money from the judgement. I don't really see how bitcoin changes much is that regard. What would be funny is lots of family law firms accepting bitcoin payments.  Exactly...if all your liquid assets quickly vanish in the midst of a divorce, you would get slapped with a judgement, and your wages would be garnished. You would end up having to pay it back anyways, unless you plan on never working another W2 job in your life... Easy as all hell as a professional poker player. Ship it. Better advice is just not to get married. Especially if you are a remotely intelligent, motivated and successful male. Don't get freerolled gents. And if you want to get married, get a pre-nup. A woman/man with good motives won't have a problem signing on - if you are going to be together forever, it will never come into play, so unless she/he intends to marry for money, it will never come up. I'm not opposed to giving women money after you've been together for a while, esp if you are the breadwinner, but when I'm moderately wealthy and they are dead broke (they always are), and they aren't motivated to change/study/etc (only shop for shoes), giving them anything past (like half) what I would deem fair would be mind blowing. You have a problem still that if you don't marry a women you get this common law marriage thing that comes into play after 10 years together or something anyway so you have to get a contract around that as well. But even if you get a pre-nup, fucking why? How does it help anything? You really want some stupid piece of paper? And don't talk about tax benefits and this hospital garbage. Not even close to ev on divorce costs, marriage costs, life liquidity, etc. Perhaps in some jurisdictions, not all. |
|
|
|
So is this going to be another thing the media highlight as a bad use of bitcoin?
Only if the author is a misandrist.  |
|
|
|
This is a bit silly considering anyone with access to money can put it anywhere. Gold, silver, cash ect. It also doesn't mean that you still won't owe your ex-spouse the money from the judgement. I don't really see how bitcoin changes much is that regard. What would be funny is lots of family law firms accepting bitcoin payments. Exactly...if all your liquid assets quickly vanish in the midst of a divorce, you would get slapped with a judgement, and your wages would be garnished. You would end up having to pay it back anyways, unless you plan on never working another W2 job in your life... Easy as all hell as a professional poker player. Ship it. Better advice is just not to get married. Especially if you are a remotely intelligent, motivated and successful male. Don't get freerolled gents. And if you want to get married, get a pre-nup. A woman/man with good motives won't have a problem signing on - if you are going to be together forever, it will never come into play, so unless she/he intends to marry for money, it will never come up. |
|
|
|
This - thanks for posting this. There will be Bitcoin and this inflate-a-coin fork. Then people will have coins on both forks and pick the one that makes the most sense. The network consists of nodes. If such a change was decided to be implemented, it would require agreement of more than the 51% of those nodes so the network can fork and implement this change as a valid one.
My technical knowledge on bitcoin is not an expert's one since I'm not familiar with programming. But I'm sure that you can see where this is going. In simple words: if a "central authority" decides to to something like that they wouldn't be able to without the networks permission.
The network consists of everyone running a bitcoin node, you and me could be running a node by having a wallet with the full blockchain in it...
This is not quite correct. Even if 51% of users actually want to change, they still can't force a change upon the other 49%. A highly controversial change to bitcoin would likely result in a blockchain fork such that after the fork two coins would exist: bitcoin and bitcoin++. Pre-fork coins would be valid on both chains. Bitcoin++ would trade directly against bitcoin and the market's opinion of bitcoin++ would quickly become clear. For it to become the dominant fork, the economic majority would need to be willing to swap their bitcoins for additional bitcoin++ coins, thereby legitimizing the new chain. However, it isn't logical for the holders of a currency to voluntarily agree to an increase in the inflation rate unless it was somehow to their benefit. Are there any circumstances where it would be generally agreed that an increase in the inflation rate is necessary? The only thing I can think of is to increase network security should the fees from transactions not be deemed adequate some point in the distant future. Perhaps the economic majority would feel that a perpetual 0.5% inflation rate is superior to 0%, as it represents a direct subsidy to miners who secure the network. Note that this doesn't actually benefit miners, as there is no reason to expect profit margins in the mining sector to increase. It just means that more energy would be directed towards securing the network. In summary, it would take much more than 51% agreement to change bitcoin's inflation schedule. The economic majority of bitcoin holders would have to be willing to trade out of bitcoin and into bitcoin++, accepting the risk that this new inflating version could collapse sucking all their wealth with it. In other words, it would have to be pretty obvious that an increase in the inflation rate was necessary. |
|
|
|
|
If you like android, keep it, if not, then use iOS.
The real concern here is the security of the device you use. Ideally for any large number of bitcoins, use a non-internet connected device with nothing else on it.
But use a device that gets regular security updates if you are connecting to the internet. Check out how long, how quickly, and how often the updates are released.
|
|
|
|
Ever heard of PROPERTY TAX?
Yes, but property taxes usually are referred to as the taxes that come along with home ownership And they are not applied by the IRS at the Federal level, but at the local level, usually county in the US. (US centric here given the topic) |
|
|
|
|
Assuming you are talking about blockchain.info, not the blockchain itself. Blockchain.info is just one part of the network, it shows when it sees the block which is not instant it is mined. It appears 303836-303840 were all generated within a very small window and so the order that they were generated and consequently built upon was not the same order that blockchain.info saw them.
|
|
|
|
Assuming by blockchain, you mean blockchain.info, then if you use a different wallet to send the money from confirmed transactions it will work just fine. Blockchain.info may still have incorrect information, but that shouldn't impact the use of the bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Because there are no such things as "psychics", just frauds? Everywhere I hear a psychic give a prediction on bitcoin, it seems to be unanimously bearish and apocalyptic.
"52 Bitcoin OK just think the crash of 1929, and the South Sea Bubble. Multiply those two events by ten then you'll be close to what is going to happen to this ponzi scheme."
-Christian Dion "the seer"
"Prediction #14: The alternative digital currency, Bitcoin, will crash due to a well placed virus that affects the algorithm. . …"
-LaMont Hamilton
I had a personal reading myself with a renowned psychic in march/april and was told:
-someone would steal all my money
-exchanges would start stealing customer money (I described what happened with gox and was told other exchanges were going to start doing the same thing)
-whatever happened in December was going to happen again, and cause a crash
-There would be a recovery into the 500s.
-There would be a little bit of action this year, but nothing extravagant. No huge rallies. Probably just 500s.
-Afterwards, prices would steadily decline again into an even further crash
-Something would happen in Japan
-The costs of using Bitcoin would rise (due to regulation)
-I was not going to continue to exponentially increase my money into millions and I was more likely to lose it all instead.
So what's up with these psychics. Why are they so bearish?
Disclaimer: I am currently long since my stop was blown out at $460 and I moved all of my coins into cold storage. I don't plan on changing this at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Nobody currently hold one million Bitcoins. Anyway, I've met a Fiat millionaire, but not a Bitcoin millionaire. I think they'd want to stay hidden for security reasons.
I think they'll be living like average civilians, so they won't spend all of their wealth.
I thought Satoshi might have over a million? And everybody knows being a bitcoin millionaire means holding a million fiat value in coins. And why would a bitcoin millionaire what to stay hidden any more than a fiat millionaire? You have to specify the currency then - Euros, dollars, Yuan, Yen, pounds, Zimbabwean dollars etc. e.g. One million Yen is about $10,000 today, iirc. |
|
|
|
It's legal of course.
But here's the thing: pump and dump schemes might hurt short term market confidence but might also strengthen long term market confidence. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I wouldn't attribute the latest sell offs entirely to pumping and dumping.
It is not legal. While I don't have much sympathy for the greedy fools that are victims of the fraud, I don't think that pump and dump could ever be considered a good thing. Where is it illegal exactly? There is no law against buying a bunch of something then selling it. Insider trading is illegal but it is not a pure pump and dump. It may be legal some places, illegal others. In the US it is certainly illegal for tradable securities. Does bitcoin fall under that definition? I am sure the SEC etc would try to make it fit if they had an interest in prosecuting someone, and given the nature of the current government of men not laws (instead of laws, not men), no one can predict the outcome. Anyway, the laws vary by jurisdiction, bitcoin is notoriously jurisdiction agnostic, and hence hard to regulate. I don't think anyone knows for sure the answer, but in the US, EU, UK etc, I would be very cautious doing a pump-and-dump. Look at these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dumphttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50195934/14726578-How-to-Define-Illegal-Price-Manipulation-by-Albert-S-Kyle-and-S-Viswanathan |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
