It would likely increase in price as it did when crypress had it's banking crisis last year.
A financial crisis by definition put the financial stability of banks into question. When banks ability to pay depositors is questioned then people will have an incentive to look elsewhere to hold their money. Bitcoin is a likely answer to this
I entirely agree with you; Bitcoin and Gold will increase in price if there is a financial crisis; when the market will understand that the USD will be inflated to death and will be abandoned in world settlements it will benefit Bitcoin (and Gold) as well The likely scenario is the fall of USD, market panic, big banks failures, interest rates rise that will be fought by the FED via more QE then riots, marshall law and curfew in the US; the world economy is very integrated so everyone will suffer at first But China and countries that have natural ressources, low debt and/or work well/hard will come up on top while Europe and the US will not be as powerful relatively to other countries; they will still have a lot of human&financial&physical capital, attraction and ressources so they will probably bounce back if the people doesn't fall for the speech of extremists It really depends on the level of severity of a financial crisis. In the 2008 financial panic, the dollar and treasury bonds rose sharply as they are considered to be a safe haven. In general US banks were safe from runs on banks by depositors due to FDIC protection so I think your scenario would be unlikely. In a financial crisis, credit will generally contract, causing people to be able to spend less money, causing deflation. The Fed would attempt to use low interest rates to battle this deflation. Deflation for large economies is a bad thing because it goes into a positive feedback loop that ultimately result in lower economic activity (even after accounting for the lower prices) and lower standard of living. |
|
|
|
(2)I like the idea of have the fees be distributed internally as each transmission could easily have 100 or more outputs if each node were to only transmit data 300 meters.
(2) well bitcoins are not sent 300 yards, they have to go through miners and sit on a blockchain. so thats means transactions need to be sent out of country to where there is internet. or if it was a new protocol (like meshcoin idea i brainfarted) then the principles of a blockchain as we see it today would be different. If you needed to send data to a node that was 1,200 yards away then you would need to pay the node you send the data directly to (the one 300 yards from you), to the node it sends data to (total of 600 yards from you), the node 300 yards from the 2nd node (900 total yards from you) and the last node (the last payment is debatable, but lets say for arguments sake that we do pay the last one as well - total of 1,200 yards from you). This would involve sending payment to a total of 4 different nodes (a TX with 4 outputs). Now for example if you needed to send data to a node 300,000 yards away (only ~170 miles) then you would need to send payment to 100 nodes (assuming the data can be sent in the most efficient manner). Payments would have to be set up this way as if they were not then all of the nodes would simply be relaying data for free (the net effect), as nodes would be getting compensated for receiving the data but having to pay to send it to the next node if it were not and nodes would have no incentive to relay data otherwise. (3)Another issue would be that of large websites that have a lot of traffic. Wouldn't surrounding nodes of where the node for major websites like CNN.com get overloaded with traffic?
(3) many websites have large userbase. but using the africa analogy. not every user would independently be sending data to the webwallet. instead the supernode that have a internet connection would (and they would be getting rich because of being the last node of the whole trip). if their computer couldnt handle such volume if suddenly 1million africans somehow all wanted to send data his direction all at the same time. then while offline another node with internet would relay it, getting the reward for doing so. maybe part of programming the mesh network would be to ensure there were suitable supernodes that can handle large volume, and have limits of transmission per minute to allow a fair distribution for all nodes at the north african border who have internet. so that not only one node gets their part of the fee. eg to distribute the greed that one node isnt the only node transmitting to the webwallet but these are all theories of how the back bone of a meshnetwork could turn out to be like in the future.. no one has really gone into too much detail about how value/balance would be confirmed in a non mining/short distance per-to-per network. or how transmission bloat/thousands of relays going through a single node at a country border would be dealt with These super nodes would be spending huge sums of money to send their data, not receiving huge sums of money. As with bitcoin the sender must always pay the fee. If the receiver was to pay the fee for data then a random node could simply send a bunch of junk data to random nodes that did not request and have no need for the data being received. Having super nodes like this presents a couple of issues. 1- The nodes that connect to these super nodes, no matter how many connections the super nodes have would have to handle a lot more traffic then other nodes (that are not super nodes). This would ultimately result in the nodes that are connected to the super nodes to get overloaded with traffic. 2- Per my calculations a super node that has 1,000,000 connections would need to be able to connect to nodes ~95 miles away (this number is off due to rounding) in every direction. This would not only be technologically challenging to achieve this in itself but something with that much power would interfere with the communications with other nodes as there could only be a limited number of frequencies that could be used. This would mean that nodes within this 95 mile radius from the super node may not be able to communicate well (or at all) with other nodes. |
|
|
|
Meshnets only work in high population density areas.
Why? Is this a limitation of hardware generally available, licensing is required for high enough powered transmitting devices? Or what? I would think that this type of setup would only be feasible in urban or suburban areas where population density is high. If population density is too low then users would rely on a small number of nodes for internet access, in other words there would only be one possible chain to get to the rest of the internet. These nodes would use some level of electricity when they are on and connected (or trying to connect) to the rest of the network. If the nodes are rarely used then a user may turn off their node (or they could turn off their node for any number of other reasons), cutting off internet access to others that rely on that node to get to the rest of the internet. |
|
|
|
So celebrate this, what are we calling it? Victory? This 'victory' for bitcoin, but know that it is a victory that can, and will, bite some of you in the ass.
Why is it going to 'bite some of us in the ass'. I've booked a hotel with expedia in the past and didn't have a problem. I used a visa card. Next time I use expedia I may get to pay with BTC. I think that would be wonderfully convenient. Can you be a little more clear? I guess the ability to chargeback on your card is what he meant. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible but I guess they will still issue refunds. Aha, yes that seems like it might be what was meant. However, if I was negotiating in good faith with expedia and they owed me a refund, I'm sure they can find some way to do it (either by sending my BTC back or by generating a payment in fiat). I think that overstock will only issue bitcoin refunds for people that buy with bitcoin, and if you buy with bitcoin you cannot get a fiat refund. AFAIK the items are priced in fiat and refunds are given in terms of fiat, so if for example you buy something for $600 and the price of one BTC is $600, you would send 1 btc for your purchase. A few days later you request a refund and when the refund is processed the price of BTC $550, you would receive 1.09090909 BTC ($600 worth of bitcoin based on the price when refund is issued). I would imagine that expedia would have similar policies for refunds. |
|
|
|
The intended purpose of the unique client code idea was not to prevent criminal use of bitcoins by clients, but to prevent certain unethical behavior by the exchange, possibly with complicity of some privileged clients. (Of course it woudl only work if the uiqueness of the codes was certified by independent, reputable auditors.)
This is not something that even our stock market in the US has. In general most people (IMO) trust stock market exchanges and have confidence in the market. That is because stock exchanges are strictly regulated and audited by the SEC, and many unethical tricks are crimes with stiff sentences. I was assuming that bitcoin exchanges would remain free from such regulations for a while still. If they are to be regulated the same way as stock exchanges, then the UCCs may add little to public confidence (but would still be very useful for market analysis). Would you prefer that exchanges be regulated like this? Having unethical tricks be crimes would deter exchanges more then simply opening their trading logs like this. IMO people would still utilize an exchange if it was well known that it was doing unethical things that didn't put their money in question nor were illegal. It was no secret that gox was having money problems (the extent of them were not known), and that it had many security breaches but they were the largest exchange for a long time after Bitstamp and BTC-e started seriously competed with them, and when they were de-throned as the largest exchange they still had a lot of trading volume by any measure. IMO money and security problems is worse then an exchange having unethical practices. What kind of behavior by exchanges do you think this would stop/allow to be discovered? If you are talking about an exchange trading for it's own account, then there is really nothing wrong with this as long as they are using their own money.
That is actually very wrong. The exchange knows the client orders before other clients, so it can scoop up good trades that otherwise would have been exploited by them. (I believe this is what is called front-running, yes?). Any money that the exchange makes this way comes from the pockets of their clients, but they would not notice it -- they would just have less luck than they would in an honest exchange, and as a whole they would lose more money than just the trading fees. Yes an exchange does know their customer's orders before they do, and they also know when there will be large buy orders in the near future (when they receive fiat deposits people who make the deposits will generally buy bitcoin). For all customers the time that they have to front run their customers would be seconds at best. The only type of customer that this could protect would be the whales (other orders would simply not be large enough to move the market) and the possible person who could front run would go from being the exchange to other market participants. I suspect that all exchanges are doing this (and/or other dirty tricks). If something is not illegal, cannot be detected, and is extremely profitable, why would a businessman not do it? A businessman would not do it because it would be unethical. Even if there is no way for the public to audit certain things, there is also the risk that someone would leak certain information. Most employers tell their employees to act in a way so that they would not be ashamed if what they did appeared on the front page of the newspaper. What makes you think that all exchanges are front-running their clients? A standard audit of the books and accounts would not detect this. But with certfied UCCs in the logs, people will notice that one client (or a few "friends of the house") will have extra luck and will always seem to know juicy orders beforehand.
What would prevent the "friends of the house" from creating multiple accounts and only using each account for one trade? I would think it would be the expected behavior for most accounts to only have one buy or one sell transaction then become dormant as people would cash out of their bitcoin or buy bitcoin as an investment in one lump sum. |
|
|
|
Exchanges with and without unique client codes could coexist, so that clients could choose. That is something that the market (or should it be the meta-market?  ) seems capable of deciding. this would defeat the purpose of having client codes as it was said previously that they would be installed to make sure no one is doing anything nefarious and a criminal could simply use an exchange that does not use these client codes The intended purpose of the unique client code idea was not to prevent criminal use of bitcoins by clients, but to prevent certain unethical behavior by the exchange, possibly with complicity of some privileged clients. (Of course it woudl only work if the uiqueness of the codes was certified by independent, reputable auditors.) Unique client codes would also immensely improve our knowledge of the market. For instance we could tell how many coins have been bought for each given price and not sold yet; that would provide an estimate of long-range liquidity that may be much more rreliable than the order book. We could tell whether the market is concentrating or distributing bitcoin ownership. How many active traders there are in each exchange. And much more. This is not something that even our stock market in the US has. In general most people (IMO) trust stock market exchanges and have confidence in the market. What kind of behavior by exchanges do you think this would stop/allow to be discovered? If you are talking about an exchange trading for it's own account, then there is really nothing wrong with this as long as they are using their own money. If you are talking about an exchange having enough reserves then the exchange could simply have their books audited by an outside auditor |
|
|
|
if it only cost 1satoshi per repeater to transmit the TX. and the range of a repeater was only 100 metres. it would cost 0.00043000 for a tx US east coast to US west coast. and a hell of alot more to go from lets say capetown (southafrica) to eastern russia across land 0.002 relay fee
Wouldn't this add a lot of TX to the blockchain? Like huge amounts.
i wrote a big long explanation, then thought it was too long and waffly.. but in shortdepends how the mesh network was set up.. and for what purpose. but so far the idea is just at the dream stage, it seems that it needs thrashing out and theorized.. hense why im throwing lots of idea's/theories into the mix to help whomever wants to go ahead with it. to see it from different angles. currently the internet works for bitcoin. but in a scenario that the internet wasnt around, and a different method of peer-to-peer relaying was required.. lets say a totally different protocol. and was named meshcoin then the blockchain would look and act very different. if used just to transmit from countries where internet was blocked, into countries where it wasnt blocked. then the data that is relayed could simply be an encrypted offchain balance movement API command.. (much like webwallet services(coinbase) credit users internally) thus the fee would be distributed internally. without spamming the blockchain Who would control that "internal distribution" that would be responsible for making sure everyone pays and is paid properly? I like the idea of have the fees be distributed internally as each transmission could easily have 100 or more outputs if each node were to only transmit data 300 meters. Another issue would be that of large websites that have a lot of traffic. Wouldn't surrounding nodes of where the node for major websites like CNN.com get overloaded with traffic? |
|
|
|
are there not any escrow services?
Sure, if you are willing to have the escrow hold onto your coins for the six to twelve months until your ability to do a charge back expires. Once you can no longer claw back the money, you'll get your coins. I'll do this right now for you if you want. If the OP only want's the btc as a longish term speculation or some sort of savings, then this might not be a bad offer actually. I am sure that vod would want the OP to (ironically) cover the credit card fees in this situation. |
|
|
|
bad luck and new mining difficulty
my understanding is that the difficulty is based off of how many leading zeros are in the hash of the nonce. The smallest increase in difficulty is adding one additional zero, correct? by what order of magnitude does this increase the difficulty? No, the difficulty is not adjusted in huge four bit increments (adding another zero), the difficulty is adjusted in much finer detail, read this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/DifficultyThe current target is here: http://blockexplorer.com/q/hextargetand it is: 0x0000000000000000415FD1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 "The SHA-256 hash of a block's header must be lower than or equal to the current target for the block to be accepted by the network." So it must be less than or equal to the number shown above, until the next adjustment. Oh, to answer your question directly "adding another zero" is a shift by 4 bits so it would increase the difficulty by 2 4 = 16 times the previous difficulty = a 1600% increase in the difficulty. I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that the maximum the difficulty can increase each 2016 block period is (was) 4x the current difficulty |
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood the situation. Giving the students $100 in btc was not a charitable donation. Most of these students don't need handouts.Instead they are trying to draw more bright young minds into BTC. A lot of valuable contributions, startups, and innovation could come from a select group like this. A $100 "donation" to MIT students will likely go a lot further then giving $100 to a homeless person/shelter. The MIT student will likely eventually contribute to society in some way (hopefully this project will make some of them make their contribution somewhat bitcoin related). On the other hand the homeless simply drain from society |
|
|
|
They do need reserves or need to lie about it like Lehmans did.
They do need reserves at the Fed but that's not important as they can always obtain them. What they need more is capital, and the capital requirement is far more important to lending. The Fed does not need capital or reserves because they can simply "print" additional money to satisfy any capital needs or when member banks withdraw money from the fed I was talking about commercial banks reserves which they are obliged to have at Fed. Commercial banks reserve can be "raised" by having the Fed buying up all the useless securities from them. Yep, the Fed doesn't even have to buy anything from them. There's a mechanism that has been used for ages - repo operations. It's a part of normal central bank functioning. An average person do not know what tool bank have that allow them manipulate price and control interest rate. If they do, most banks won't exist today. interest rates are manipulated to try to keep inflation low |
|
|
|
at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.
as it has been discussed, its not a problem.
for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does
yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.
same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.
this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.
data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution
This may be true but bandwidth and storage is not free. The fact that it costs people money to provide a service to the network (keeping it secure) while not receiving anything in return (anything tangible) will always have the number of nodes depressed. it costs $50 for call of duty, and >$300 for a console to play it and be part of the playstation/microsoft network. but they get nothing back in return.. hmmmmmmm how many consoles are there in the world which proves that people dont truly care They receive entertainment while they are playing those games. |
|
|
|
Not to be pedantic, but technically speaking, everything about fiat is bad for fiat and good for Bitcoin. Except perhaps current adoption during this historically brief transition period.
I would not go that far. You can spend fiat even when the power is out and when you do not have access to the internet, this is not the case with bitcoin |
|
|
|
It is really just quick books being able to handle the accounting/tax portion of accepting bitcoin by a small business ^^ This right here! Takes care of what might otherwise be a major pain for a small business owner - trying to account for / handle tax implications of individual bitcoin transactions. Hooking up a shopping cart is easy with CoinBase / Bitpay if you sell goods online. Intuit / Quickbooks have just made it possible for consultants, plumbers, and a raft of other small businesses to INVOICE and collect using Bitcoin. And by doing this, Intuit/QuickBooks are effectively lending their weight as an "endorsement" of bitcoin as a legitimate payment method - up there with Visa / MC / etc. Plenty of small businesses - and small business owners who will start looking into Bitcoin now. And we all know that once you look, you're hooked!  I am with the other posters on this - I think this is a BIG deal! YAY! Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #cnJavZ5gkwnxDJlWI am not saying this is not a big deal. IMO big businesses make a bigger difference then small businesses when they accept bitcoin. They have brand recognition and their actions can make the news while this is so generally so with small businesses. Even if you do not deal with overstock or expedia you would likely be exposed to bitcoin when you read about it in the paper |
|
|
|
If you have a monopoly then you do not have incentives to provide "superior service" as you do not have any real competition
Incentive is hold on to what you have and keep other from starting a business to compete with you. Monopolies have enough control of the market so other businesses cannot easily compete. |
|
|
|
Most people who have to pay the electric bill won't be doing this for $0.01 an hour I would assume. $1 an hour yeah maybe. I would probably set up an old computer for $1 an hour. I know that it can't possibly be profitable for someone to mine more than $1 an hour off of an old computer so it's not a scenario that is likely to come up.
If they were to have their computer running regardless then in their mind it would not change their electric bill. Most people do not understand that a computer will use up more electricity when it's processor is running at a higher percentage of it's capacity |
|
|
|
One thing that would improve transparency a lot would be to attach a scrambled client ID to each bid/ask submission, and the two IDs to each trade
This would get a lot of people to stay away from exchanges, at least people who plan on buying/selling large amounts. If it was clear that scrambled id "1234" was buying large amount of bitcoin then other traders could also buy expecting the large buyer to further drive up the price. The result would be that this large trader essentially pays a higher price then if several small traders bought the same amount at the same time Yes, many traders would not like even that limited increment in transparency. But others may like it, if it makes them feel more confident about the exchange. Exchanges with and without unique client codes could coexist, so that clients could choose. That is something that the market (or should it be the meta-market? ) seems capable of deciding. this would defeat the purpose of having client codes as it was said previously that they would be installed to make sure no one is doing anything nefarious and a criminal could simply use an exchange that does not use these client codes But I don't think that they would be necessarily inconvenient, even for big traders. In your example, other traders would not know whether the buying whale has a preset max price, or how much he intends to buy; or whether the small traders will keep on buying too. And such a buying whale would be sharing the market with many other traders -- including big selling whales, for which the same reasoning would lead to the opposite effect. If a whale is buying a lot of bitcoin they will need to do it gradually, over time (over hours or possibly even days for very big whales). The whale will likely drive up the price regardless if others know that he is buying so his maximum price is likely somewhat above the price when he is just starting to buy or else he would never get his order filled. There would be no reason for other small traders to stop buying as a whale buying would not stop them. All things being equal they would continue to buy. Unless both whales are trading at the same time then this would not be the case. |
|
|
|
The price of a GH/s depends on both the current and future values of the difficulty. The price has been rising at cex.io because future difficulty is now expected to be less than previously expected. This has caused the price to rise even though the current difficulty is still rising.
Despite that, the price at cex.io is still too high. It is unlikely that anyone holding shares at the current price will make a profit.
The value of a GH/s depends on the amount of bitcoin it will earn over time, in the future (future cash flow), this is based off of the current difficult and the rate at which difficulty is increasing. The price of GHs should not deviate to far from the value, however the price is ultimately set by the market. |
|
|
|
Ok, ok, but how does the customer send the money to Coinbase?
They can use their bank account, one that does not carry any fees. And why can't they use such an account to pay the merchant? What does Coinbase do to avoid fees on dollar deposits, that merchants cannot do? Or are you considering international purchases? In that case going through bitcoin could save money over paying directly with dollars; but bitcoin-based payment processors do not yet reach overseas, do they? (And for most overseas purchases, transportation and customs taxes will dwarf the credit card fees.) You can but this would carry a lot of risks, risks that coinbase manages and takes. It is also slow as ACH usually takes 2-3 days to be received by the other bank. Shipping and tariffs (customs taxes) are big for most international purchases, however bitcoin would still save money on the transaction as it would reduce overall costs. |
|
|
|
if it only cost 1satoshi per repeater to transmit the TX. and the range of a repeater was only 100 metres. it would cost 0.00043000 for a tx US east coast to US west coast. and a hell of alot more to go from lets say capetown (southafrica) to eastern russia across land 0.002 relay fee
Wouldn't this add a lot of TX to the blockchain? Like huge amounts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
