Yes, IMHO it is essential that every new bitcoin user gets at least a little starter kit to spend.
And having fun doing so.
And keep using Bitcoin.
And spread the word.
WTF ?! What's preventing him from just BUYING some ? For me you sound just as if you were willing to have some stuff for nothing. Bitcoin is a money. It doesn't come with a free beer. Edit. I'm sorry to say that, but this whole speech about "it would be more fair if we give everyone a same amount for starting", smells so much like communism, I can't help saying it loud. Yes, it seems to me it is just a way to put some socialist ideas about money. Cryptocurrencies are like gold. Socialists don't like them. Because they can't control it. Because they can't steal it "to the rich to give to the poor". They think it's "unfair". Let's imagine we can distribute a same part of the 21 millions bitcoins for everyone in the world. Say, 7 billions humans. That will be 0.003 BTC. Ok, everything is fine and fair, now, hum ? For how long ? What to do with every new born child after that, hum ? And after some time, when some people will just spend their bitcoins and return to nothing, while some others will just hoard bitcoins, you'll have the same inequalities you were complaining about. So what was you point ? You were happy to create a fair and equal world during a few days, a few weeks maybe ? This is stupid. |
|
|
|
|
A usefull command if you like to watch your wallet evolve in real time is the command "watch" :
$ watch bitcoind getinfo
|
|
|
|
|
I know that one of the good things whith bitcoins, is that you don't need a complex code into your website in order to accept donations. Basically all you need is to display a bitcoin address.
However, I wonder if using a single fixed unique address is a good idea. Because it could allow anyone, including the tax-humgry government, to know exactly how many bitcoins you have received.
I'm not concerned about this, because I don't maintain any website. But I might be in the future. Therefore I'd like to suggest to publish a small CGI script that would create a new bitcoin-address for every visitor who would like to make donation.
I suck a CGI programming, but at least I know that any programming language can be used to do that. So I guess a simple "bitcoind getnewaddress SOMELABEL" could be used, where SOMELABEL would be any string the donator would like to enter.
I'd appreciate if someone could post an example of such a script.
|
|
|
|
My guess is : deflation ends when even rich people have no choice but spending their money. But when this appends, I don't know what poor people would habe been passed through... Not really. But even if this was the case, the poor people would pass through... lower prices. Oh the horror!! Imagine having to pay less for the food. Unacceptable! The poor have to pay more for the food! Its (somehow) for their own good. Oh yeah that was silly what I was writing. Forget it. I need to get more sleep  |
|
|
|
Still 2 blocks to go but I'm sick of waiting, so I'm ending this. Anon01 wins the auction with 200 BTC. My next auction will probably be on biddingpound.com. It will be an other 1g mini bar. EDIT. Finally I made my next auction on this same forum. See here : http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887.0 |
|
|
|
2. Can deflation have no end? It is not possible for 100$ in your mattress to eventually become an economic equivalent of universe during a stable economic process. Only that is possible after an horrific changes in the world, like destruction of all world's money.
My guess is : deflation ends when even rich people have no choice but spending their money. But when this appends, I don't know what poor people would habe been passed through... |
|
|
|
Cheer up man, 200BTC is a good bid...
If you take 1BTC = 0.3USD that makes 60 dollars. Even if you take 1BTC = 0.25USD, that makes you 50 dollars.
According to goldprice.org, the current price for 1g is around 44 dollars.
Oh, I didn't realize. I was just considering the price displayed on bitcoinwatch.com. But I guess bitcoinwatch does not very frequently update its price for one gram gold. |
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm sorry to observe that very few of you are interested.
However, let me just remind you that there are about only 20 blocks to go.
I won't do any IRC auction if anybody shows up and ask for it.
Highest bid is still 200 BTC
|
|
|
|
Don't you think, that kind of democracy will leave satoshi no choice, but to drop 21M limit
and will also force him to accept a lot of other stupid misimprovements to bitcoin's core?
And don't you see, bitcoin will become totally unusable and will die it's natural death that way,
without proper PR, public opinion management, endless education, everything, that today also
happens with any other democracy?
Nobody should have to force anyone. If some people want to make their crappy inflationned, socialistic distributed crypto-currency, then be it ! All they have to do is TO FORK BITCOIN. That's what is good with free-software : there is room for all ideas, even for stupid ones ! All I want is a name for a sound crypto-currency, so that I can buy it without having to check every single line of the source code. |
|
|
|
The point is not about the definition of customers or potential customers or (I should have better called them) potential USERS.
we need to quickly enable simple ways for them to buy bitcoins.
There are already simple ways to buy bitcoins. Cash via mail is one of them. I personnaly never succeeded in generating any single bitcoin, and yet I own a lot of them now. So buying bitcoin is not that difficult for people who really want to. |
|
|
|
|
Which means that the auction will probably end in the next 9 hours.
|
|
|
|
"customer is boss"
If there are many complaints, we better take them into account
A customer is a customer only if he buys. People who complain about how difficult it is to generate don't buy any bitcoins, almost per definition. So we can't consider them as "customers". |
|
|
|
On the other hand, if Bitcoins are hoarded in the hands of just a few, then it is possible that the new idea will fall flat on its face because nobody is willing to try the idea out, and those who have the pile of money don't want it. I'm not saying that most of the money concentrated in the hands of a few is a bad thing, I'm just saying that something must be in the hands of many people, even if it is just a very little bit.
Basically what you are saying could be said about the very concept of money itself, not just bitcoins. Discussing about this would lead us to discussing about communism vs liberalism. This is a debate that goes far beyond bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
This is quite a good idea. Some kind of a mind trick, in some way.
Also, instead of suggesting the installation of the software, one could point to mybitcoin.com.
|
|
|
|
Well, bitcoin forks will have to use different names, at least in order to differentiate themselves from the others. I think it wouldn't make much sense to use "bitcoin" for any cryptocurrency other than the one where the total amount is 21 millions, for it has been the name of the original one.
I was referring to the original Bitcoin. If Satoshi removes the halving of block rewards (eliminating the 21 million limit), and everyone switches to that version, then that network is still the real Bitcoin network. That's one of the reason why I won't sell all my gold for bitcoins. I mean, scarcity of gold is due to a physical reality. Scarcity of bitcoin is only due to a form of consensus. If for some reason most people decided to increase the number, I'm not sure there is much I could do, apart from selling my bitcoins and buy some gold. I don't see any way to prevent that from happening, though. |
|
|
|
Any of those things can be changed while still remaining Bitcoin. Anything can be changed, really, as long as people using the software still consider its network to be the "real Bitcoin network".
The safest "rules" would be the 21 million BTC limit and a responsibility to honor all transactions that have been in the chain for a certain amount of time. Even those might be changed, though.
Well, bitcoin forks will have to use different names, at least in order to differentiate themselves from the others. I think it wouldn't make much sense to use "bitcoin" for any cryptocurrency other than the one where the total amount is 21 millions, for it has been the name of the original one. I know we can ultimately inspect the code in order to know what kind of crypto-currency we're dealing with, but come on... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not built to continually increase the difficulty.
Bitcoin is built to continually adjust the difficulty, to attempt to reach the target of 6 blocks per hour.
If the number of miners decreases, then the difficulty will decrease.
My mistake. |
|
|
|
Why the heck would you use Facebook's currency that they tax at 30% when you could use Bitcoin??
Because some people are that dumb. |
|
|
|
I received the 5g bar that I bought in the previous auction yesterday. Thanks, Grondilu.
Thanks for noticing this in this thread. It might help insuring confidence in this auction. Don't you want to make a bid for this gram ? |
|
|
|
I wish there was more effort to actually document the protocol rather than simply "document through code" what is happening with Bitcoins. I made an effort on the internal wiki to the Bitcoins project to get started, but it is rather pathetic at the moment: http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=technical_documentationThere was also a fiasco where one regular participant to Bitcoins was asserting "ownership" over the spec that sort of crashed the party. I hope that is water over the dam now. Ideally, the coding ought to be based upon the specification rather than the spec being based upon the coding. I think that is backwards and should change. It is much easier to debate the specification and make more informed decisions about the spec when you can divorce the programming environment and reference implementation from the standards used. At the moment, the reference implementation is the specification. Some people like it that way. I don't. Satoshi's white paper ( http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) is actually an excellent specification document. It is this document that convinced me about how great is the bitcoin concept. However, Satoshi is making regular slight modifications to the protocol. Therefore, I think the document lacks a clear and exhaustive list of features that are absolutely necessary to define what bitcoin is. Such a list could be used to audit the source code and make sure it is compliant to the bitcoin concept. Amongst those features would be : * The halfing of bitcoins reward every 210,000 blocks * use of SHA-256 for hash * a target of 6 generated blocks per hour |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
