It will not work on everybody. It will not work always. EDIT:Actually the wiki article you have given says that always-working truth serum does not exist. Read first before you copy paste. |
|
|
|
I guess most folks have seen this already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232950.0It's fairly obvious that's a smear campaign ready and waiting to be fired at Bitcoin but then there's the story so far: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=233680.0That suggests its really a stick and the carrot is regulation. At first glance through a westerners eyes it looks like that puts a lot of pressure on the devs but in reality Bitcoin's much bigger than that, its a democratic system on a global scale and the dev's have already made it clear there's no shortage of coders for the project. That lets the dev's off the hook, they can declare the sky is green, the sea is orange and Ben Bernanke is undisputed ruler of the galaxy in the 1.0 blockchain if they wish, its ultimately up to the user's to decide if they want to run that version and take regulation in exchange for fincen's blessing and the riches it brings. The alternative is all the mud the western corporate media can sling and every time Joe Public hears "Bitcoin" he'll think "child abuse". But Joe Public has a short memory and quick gets bored of hearing the same tune, by the time the next headline on the agenda has cooled it will be nothing but a vague memory and will probably do more to promote Bitcoin in the long run... but that's up to the users, take the money and run or financial freedom? Well, we were waiting for it since the dawn of Bitcoin. I don't really think people will be too surprised here. It would be more surprising & unexpected if they didn't try to fight us. |
|
|
|
How would this work with a sendmany rpc json transaction?
It will work with everything that the mainline client works with. Well, except paying more fees of course. |
|
|
|
DATE NEED FIXING!
What needs fixing about it? , not 2013-6-11 |
|
|
|
We all know the number of bitcoins are hard coded into the software at around 21 million. Miners often wonder if mining is a long term viable activity because eventually all the bitcoins will be mined. Only transaction fees are left. Transaction fees may or may not even cover the power cost to keep the miners running. And miners are important to bitcoin's network integrity.
As an incentive to keep the miners online, the community can increase the number of Bitcoins to be mined. So how do we increase the number of Bitcoins?
I think the solution is to a fixed exchange rate for old Bitcoin from version 1 to version 2. Where the exchange rate is voted on by the community.
The analogy in the real world would be a stock split. Microsoft had split its stock several times in the past. We can copy the methodology. For example, if we want to increase the number of coins from 21 million to 42 million, then we can do a 1 to 2 split, where as each version 1 of the coin and exchange for 2 version 2 of the coin.
If Bitcoins is truly useful and is widely adopted in the future, then there would be no problem for version 2 Bitcoins to retain its fiat exchange rate. Usually following a stock split, the underlying stock price increases.
There will be philosophical and technical challenges.
1. Should we increase the number of coins to start with?
2. How to modify the software?
 |
|
|
|
|
Is this stable enough for everyday usage ?
I'm considering installing it.
|
|
|
|
 Awesome post, DeathAndTaxes. Thank you. |
|
|
|
you are right, its been a month..
time for some descentralization on mining? we have a few public pools, some private, now some private groups, and maybe some soloists still trying their luck...
Want decentralization ? Use P2Pool. Convince other people to use P2Pool. |
|
|
|
This one has not been confirmed. And thousands people probably already looked at the code, because the case is like what 5 ? 10 ? years old ? |
|
|
|
About Joel's wife ? A lot, I bet more than he knows himself.
Sorry, but i meant the thruth about ripple. To be so personal and emotional when discussing in this forum just disqualifies the arguments. So please, if you have something serious to say, Im interested. Oh, you were serious. For "what i know", check links in my signature. This topic has been discussed so many times... In short: - Ripple is not either open source or decentralized - Their website lies about the truth No more "truths" i know. |
|
|
|
Then you believe it is just "OK" to lie in that manner to get more people in the project ?
Do you still beat your wife? No, but i beat yours, and man - she likes it. So are we going to start insulting each other instead of just discussing on the topic ? Why dont you tell us what you know? About Joel's wife ? A lot, I bet more than he knows himself. |
|
|
|
Then you believe it is just "OK" to lie in that manner to get more people in the project ?
Do you still beat your wife? No, but i beat yours, and man - she likes it. So are we going to start insulting each other instead of just discussing on the topic ? |
|
|
|
.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say
Are both of these posts from you? Schizophrenia tends to do that. He probably thinks he is 2 different people simultaneously. |
|
|
|
one last time: it doesn't matter what participants of your poll think.
the only thing that should matter in making decisions on how to change the bitcoin protocol, or if it is needed at all, should be the hashing majority.
The hashing majority will have another choice. If they don't like the changes, they will not upgrade their clients to new version ! But right now it seems most of people, EXCLUDING YOU is supporting the change. setting up some meeting on a desert in las Vegas, or wherever, where a bunch of guys who consider themselves the elite of bitcoin decide how to change the protocol, and maybe even (god, I hope not) how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say
What the hell are you talking about ? What have you been smoking ? Where have you been the last 6 months ? Yes, this issue has been discussed for AT LEAST 6 MONTHS. This is not "some decision done on the desert of LA", dumbass. Please, stop wasting our time with this pointless discussion. All of your arguments have been proven to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Why don't you just update the site and wiki so it reflects **the truth** ? That would shut the mouths of all critics.
It wouldn't shut the mouths of any critics, they'd just move on to some other argument that they don't actually believe. Then you believe it is just "OK" to lie in that manner to get more people in the project ? |
|
|
|
1) That there is a real possibility that all governments in the world will agree to censor BTC nodes, but that they would only stop at BTC nodes, and not all agree to also censor encrypted traffic. I put the possibility of this at less than 0.1 percent, and I don't think many people will put it at much higher.
2) That if 1) does come to be, there is a real possibility that the majority of governments in the world will also all create laws to force bitcoin miners to use their hashing hardware to attack a new fork of Bitcoin that is limited to 1 MB blocks. I put the possibility of this happening at less than 0.001 percent.
Yeah, that's what I was going to say. In the absurd event of Bitcoin being strongly banned everywhere, blocks would naturally become tiny since Bitcoin usage would become quite restrict anyway. Block sizes would be the least of our worries. +1 Also, banning of ALL ENCRYPTED TRAFFIC by ALL GOVERNMENTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ? I would say the probability of this is almost astronomically small, like < 0.0000001. You can't get all governments to agree on probably any topic you want (choose one at random) and piotr_n would like us to believe that all of them will agree on such an important issue ?  |
|
|
|
Please, for your own sake, stop proving to us how incompetent you are in predicting governments' intentions.
Obviously they wont call it "a law against running a node" - they will just shut down your node saying that it was being a part of a global money laundering syndicate, or whatever terrorism sponsoring related.
Every government in the world will not do that. As I said, you might as well be worrying about every government in the world making encrypted traffic and Tor exit nodes illegal. Governments that want to censor Bitcoin will punish businesses that accept BTC, and those that exchange it. It's futile to censor BTC data, since it needs EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT in the world to cooperate to be successful. Quite correct. Exactly as it is wit Bittorrent, creating an effective law against Bitcoin connections/nodes will require cooperation of EVERY GOVERNMENT IN THE DAMN WORLD (because internet is by its nature decentralized). And that will never happen and has never, ever happened in history. So yes, amincd's argument is correct. The only other thing that can be done technically is shutting down the Internet. Actually "they" would like very much to shut down the Internet, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuYBut "they" CAN'T. Too bad, I almost feel sorry for "them". |
|
|
|
Would you be so kind to comment on the solution I presented on MAX_BLOCK_SIZE issue?
Wery well, but first i need to find it... EDIT:I checked all of your posts in this topic and it is not there. Please point me in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
