|
It looks like CHN has more hash than FTC at the same time, and does everything FTC does except faster.....Also it seems to have a lower payout per block so may keep miners insentivised for a much longer time.....
meanwhile how is the feeling in BTE land these days?
The more I see the more I think PPC is going to come out on top, because it appears quite different and has dedicated known dev.
By 2 mBits worth
I could be wrong
|
|
|
|
Yes I did read that before....its good, though I was kinda looking for the detail you find in NeHe... line by line |
|
|
|
It's fun to see people batting these ideas around because a great way to learn about a topic is by picking a problem and turning it over and over in your head. Once you dig into the math of this, here's what you'll find: there are only 2 ways to simultaneously ensure someone controls a piece of information and yet hasn't exercised that control.
1. A trusted party
In this case, whoever runs the Chinese Code box would be able to lie about whether or not the box had been opened. So if you find an entity you are willing to trust not to lie, the system can work.
2. Some sort of p2p consensus methodology
This is in fact the central problem that the blockchain itself solves. Its assumption (that computing power costs something, and that people wanting the system to work can out-compute those who want to exploit or destroy it) is an extremely narrow one, and that makes it very reliable. If you were willing to accept different assumptions, for example that multiple known parties can be trusted not to collude, you could build a different sort of p2p consensus mechanism (like Ripple).
In short, the entire point of Bitcoin is that it answers this one question, and it answers it with the blockchain. So if you try to recreate something with the same characteristics outside of the blockchain, you either have to accept different assumptions, or reinvent the blockchain. And it's difficult to imagine a solution with lower built-in trust than Bitcoin's.
But don't take my word for it! Keep turning the problem over your head until you understand why this must be the case. If you do, you'll end up with a deeper understanding of Bitcoin than the vast majority of its fans.
Your right as I mulled it over it became apparent that you arrive at the Block-chain solution again |
|
|
|
I googled "bitcoin banking jurisdiction"... and this came in #2.
Your Right! I just tested it! |
|
|
|
Didn't you already make this thread? This argument is moot.
The only thing is, it only the fist few on each chain that get this real benefit, so the cycle will continue, and the winner will be the coin with the wides support, thus likely a mobile coin solution of some sort but i can already trade bitcoins using my mobile phone. i mean, mine on a mobile!!!! |
|
|
|
Didn't you already make this thread? This argument is moot.
you mean that other thread.....not that more on hash power and thats no me I did however post another thread that suggest the final fall of the card will be total market penetration of CC, divided up by market share of each. But this is more aggressive argument, I am asserting atls are actually a way to suck out value from early BTC adopters, and that's thier driving force right now The only thing is, it's only the first few on each chain that get this real benefit, so the cycle will continue, and the winner will be the coin with the wides support, thus likely a mobile coin solution of some sort |
|
|
|
|
Okkk that lends it some credit!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
ALT coins are a mechanism to suck out earlier adopter BTC value, and following this you see the resources allocated, and more importantly the user base that comes with it. The dedicated, invested user base is the most powerful aspect of a coin, as BTC gets harder to mine, it may attract less dedicated user-base. FTC/LTC will for some time be open to non asics. But they will be knocked off by a cpu/mobile miner only coin
|
|
|
|
If you solve the problem of how to produce the secret key which is really secret without a third party knowing the secret then there might be the problem of whether anybody could sell the box (which the unknown secret key opens) more than once. Let's call this the double spend problem. I have an idea how we can solve this: every transaction of these boxes is recorded on a ledger which is verified by proof of work......
yes it does sort of end up where it started when you think it through.... |
|
|
|
Western Union :
Step 1 - I send 200 euro to my father in Thailand
Step 2 - My father goes to the nearest WU office and pick up 170 euro IN CASH, 25 minutes LATER in local currency
Step 3 - My father use the cash to pay a massage, 20 minutes later.
Time : 45 minutes
Fees : 30 euro
Bitcoin :
Step 1 - I send 2 BTC to my father.
Step 2 - My father use an exchange to sell 2 BTC for 200 USD. He withdraw the money. He receives 170 EURO (30 euro is the international transfer fee) 4 days LATER.
Step 3 - My father exchange the EURO to local currency (a small tax apply)
Step 4 - My father use the cash to pay a massage, 20 minutes later.
Time : 4 days and 20 minutes
Fees : 30 euro
wait it only costs me 8$ or 0$ for international wire transfers |
|
|
|
|
Any good FTC graphs from day 1?
|
|
|
|
That's ridiculous. Clearly Bitcoins are made out of bits&bytes and therefore should be scaled in steps with base 2.
And because some people don't like that, we will use both. Normal metric and base 2 at the same time.
So that 1 Bitcoin = 1000mB, but also = 1024 mB.
I expect those that like binary for the bits&bytes parallel would use the satoshi as their base unit for it's indivisability; bits cannot be truly subdivided. After all 1 bitcoin is nothing more that 100 million satoshi, an amount selected to give users a more intuitively appealing base unit. Indeed, amounts stored in the blockchain are stored as integers with 1 being 0.00000001 BTC = 1 satoshi. The current rate is 1.384 USD / MiSAT, or 0.7225 MiSAT / USD if you prefer. (where MiSAT ("mebisat") is mebi-satoshi = 1024^2 satoshi) 01101110 01101111 01110000 01100101 00101110 01101010 01110000 01100111 Convert Binary with http://www.ConvertBinary.com (Online Binary Translator) |
|
|
|
|
buy some vircurex shares at cryptostocks and your fee problem is offset quite a bit, and the shares have done well
4 -5 x initial value
|
|
|
|
Yes, this "we" is standard usage (for scientific papers, not forum posts of course) even if it really is just one person.
Nothing to read into this at all.
Yes I know this is standard paper stuff but still.... also the I in the forum maybe the coder only answering |
|
|
|
|
WHO/WHERE ARE TRC DEV?
DOES anyone Know?
|
|
|
|
Majestic plural maybe?
perhaps put I think it seems to read more in the flow of the text as "we" as in a group. also the paper seems to be a lot different then what I have read of statoshi's in forum posts. Ok the context is different but not that different. I'm not hard and fast about this, but it is interesting |
|
|
|
Just read the white paper again, and this may have been noted by others, but just in case The paper reads We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. We consider the scenario of an attacker We now consider how long the recipient We have proposed a system http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfso unless a deliberate red herring, it is indicative of more than one person. |
|
|
|
But then after coin is traded varios users will have access to the sme 'unopened code'
Anyone along the way can spend it...
ok, so open, they need to interface with the client to get the opener code, once they have done this the client logs that coin and the opener code is not available to anyone else, but the code is only delivered once and destroyed and the SEC is opened at that time. Without the code no one esle can open their SEC, even though they have it |
|
|
|
so I send you a private key that I can prove I have never seen and you can verify this, and you can choose to send on or open, then use as normal
I am not sure how you can *prove* you have never seen the private key but if you assume some sort of tamper proof covering can be trusted then the other part (being sure it will work) could be handled as a signed message for the public key which can be made visible to all. no, the whole thing is virtual, no physical coin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
