It looks like you reposted the claim, not any demonstration - or am I missing something? I posted a recipe for creating such a clone. It is not original, just the recipe for a hard fork. Do you think that there is something wrong with the recipe? Not if you are claiming it's a recipe for creating Yet Another Alt Coin. |
|
|
|
Stolfi likes making senseless arguments to FUD. Come on, Jorge, I'm still waiting for a demostration for your claim!
(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it. Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp. Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one. And, of course, there are the altcoins.)
+1 I would be curious to see this demonstrated as well. There is nothing to demonstrate. If I understand correctly, he is just saying anybody can create an altcoin in which the initial ledger of ownership is taken over from bitcoin. Of course, hardly anybody would see this as "being able to duplicate bitcoins". I concur, for the most part - but apparently this is NOT what he is claiming, as it has been pointed out to him multiple times that he is just describing the creation of Yet Another Alt Coin, but he keeps posting this FUD as if it represents some weakness in Bitcoin. I would like him to clarify his claim, or demonstrate the supposed weakness, once and for all. |
|
|
|
It looks like you reposted the claim, not any demonstration - or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Stolfi likes making senseless arguments to FUD. Come on, Jorge, I'm still waiting for a demostration for your claim!
(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it. Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp. Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one. And, of course, there are the altcoins.)
+1 I would be curious to see this demonstrated as well. |
|
|
|
BTCunches of BTCitcoins are always stolen. Like clockwork. And who needs a clock to trade Bitcoin anyhow? It's always time to sell. I've always been amazed by your ability to always make money by always selling bitcoins and never buying any (to close your shorts). I used to be amazed by Bitcoiners' ability to make the most idiotic false assumptions, but no more. I simply repeat, for th Nth time, that I haven't done any serious trading for over a year. You already forgot what you just read, didn't you? I don't think all readers are familiar with all your alts, and therefore, do not automatically conflate their ramblings. Maybe you could post a comprehensive list? Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Again, my original point was that the future value of bitcoin is being predicated to a large extent on the 21m cap, a belief based on faith more than reality.
I think it's predicated mostly on the belief that the majority of people (miners in this case) will act rationally. I would say that most miners consider the 21M coin cap to be a defining characteristic of Bitcoin, and probably the most important characteristic that gives the coin value. If you accept that premise, then it is logical to assume that miners will not act irrationally by destroying the value that is their whole incentive for mining in the first place. Good point, well made. But raising the cap would be an indirect consequence of adjusting the halving frequency, so by increasing the cap, you would be extending the [higher] reward period for miners Since we havent reached the point where tx fees outweigh coin reward, do you think that might become an incentive for miners to increase the cap? (bear in mind that it would be a slow process, with no immediate dump of coins on the market.) I think miners understand that any such change would destroy the faith that users have in the coin, as the known-in-advance maximum supply is a critical component of the valuation. I can't imagine a scenario where increasing the limit would actually be a win for the miners. |
|
|
|
Again, my original point was that the future value of bitcoin is being predicated to a large extent on the 21m cap, a belief based on faith more than reality.
I think it's predicated mostly on the belief that the majority of people (miners in this case) will act rationally. I would say that most miners consider the 21M coin cap to be a defining characteristic of Bitcoin, and probably the most important characteristic that gives the coin value. If you accept that premise, then it is logical to assume that miners will not act irrationally by destroying the value that is their whole incentive for mining in the first place. |
|
|
|
Ah, I see, thanks  So Loaded is not really GMaxwell after all... Dammit  |
|
|
|
On other news...   Looks terrible, until you check the scale at left... then it is only 'bad'... Unless you extend the range of the graph in time:  Then it again looks pretty terrible. |
|
|
|
installed bitcoind 0.10.0 with existing bitcoin.conf from 0.9
rpcallowip format changed Ah! I thought I was going crazy. Do you recall off hand what the syntax is? If you were using something like 'rpcallowip=192.168.1.*' before, change it to 'rpcallowip=192.168.1.0/24' (or equivalent that suits your local network). |
|
|
|
Maybe they're referring to NYSE investing in Coinbase. |
|
|
|
"Two years from now, spam will be solved." - Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, 2004
Eliminating spam seem to be to be an obvious use case for bitcoin. Have a mail application were it requires a few satoshis postage to send, but rather than the postage going to a post office, have the funds go to the recipient. Boom. Anyone sending bulk email pays for the privilege in anyone receiving bulk mail gets compensated for the hassle. The hashcash algorithm that was ultimately adapted as Bitcoin's proof-of-work was originally designed as an anti-spam tool. In order to send an email, you had to generate a hash of the email header with at least 20 leading zeros, if I recall correctly. |
|
|
|
I see 300 USD by the end of the coming week.
Depends on the news and the associated newly incoming fiat. Given this un-usual "UP" weekend, I think the chance of seeing $300 by the end of next week is high. Also depends on what is this http://coinbase.com/lunarThat's very intriguing Thanks for pointing this out. |
|
|
|
Casual racism! Well done you! I'm pretty sure "swedish" is not a race. |
|
|
|
Hello World.
Allow me to introduce myself: I am Trolfi; my mission is to protect as many good people as I can from making mistakes in the marketplace. I shall share my superior insight to alert you of pitfalls, scams, and as many possible ways in which anything could go wrong as I can humanly come up with. I shall do it in steady, avuncular tone.
Please do not ignore me.
LOL |
|
|
|
Well, it seems that we have very different views about the motivations and ideologies of miners and other players. I don't know how we could resolve this difference, so let's leave it at that.
However, note that a large fraction of the miners are Chinese; that the Chinese may not have much trust in bitcoin as the currency of the internet; and that miners, more than any other bitcoiners, cannot plan much beyond a 2-year horizon, because their equipment quickly becomes uncompetitive due to improvements in the energy efficiency.
I don't think there is any viewpoint involved. It is simply an observable fact that ONLY the consensus of miners decides what IS Bitcoin protocol, and what is NOT Bitcoin protocol. Miners will presumably act in there own self-interest, which, I believe, involves maintaining the value of the coin they are mining - which, again, would obviously be destroyed by allowing the protocol to be arbitrarily changed by anyone who promised to buy a bunch. It's not clear to me why you seem to feel that the nationality of said miners is relevant. |
|
|
|
Yes, and that is what I meant: if someone with billions to spare offered to buy 25 million bitcoins, the protocol would be immediately changed to create them, with the full cooperation of miners AND approval of developers.
I disagree. It would damage the reputation and hence value irreparably. But there's no way to prove either way. Many people have told me that. But "many" may be a thousand bitcoiners, perhaps, who care for the Core Values; and they may not include any big holders. The other 99% of the bitcoin community (including the Chinese day-traders, who may still be setting the price) probably don't understad why a change in the protocol would be a bad thing, or don't care. Note that increasing the supply of bitcoins is bad for the price only if the demand remains the same. If there were enough new demand, increasing the supply would not prevent the price from increasing, too. Come on, Jorge. You have been around here long enough now to have a better understanding of how this works. AGAIN - that "99% (including Chinese day-traders, blah, blah, blah)" DON'T MATTER - only the MINERS matter in defining the Bitcoin protocol - and the miners DO know that changing the protocol at the whim of of anyone who promised to buy a lot would render the coin valueless. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
