Can one really change the algorithm on-the-fly like that?
Doesn't it require a majority of the nodes agreeing to run the new software?
From what i understand about the algorithms used, after the SHA256->512 update, it would no longer be possible for old (unupdated) clients to connect to the network, as their block chain would be rejected by all the new nodes. Because bitcoin works on semi-fixed timeframes, it is possible to "schedule" a certain update to happen after some time (after block number XXXX), and this is exactly what i am suggesting. The change could happen even YEARS after the update (in this case, block 200.000 = about 12 months from now). All clients will be probably updated to the new version by then. This seems very hazardous. If you really want to do that, I suggest you fork bitcoin. As far as I'm concerned, I very much doubt sha256 will be broken any time soon. |
|
|
|
Lately there have been major technological breakthroughs, such as memristors, graphene-based transistors and so which will probably greatly increase processing power of computers yet to come.
So i propose a (relatively simple ?) change which would make bitcoin prepared for a 10-fold or more increase in computers' speed in the close future. Change hashing algorithm from SHA-256 to SHA-512 from block 200.000 or 250.000. This would raise the bar of difficulty of attacking the network.
Bitcoin is gaining popularity fast, so we should be prepared for the worst. IMHO it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, the more serious we get about network security, the more seriously will companies & other "serious" entities look at bitcoin resulting in wider adoption.
Is it only possible ? I mean, sha512 requires twice as many bits of space than sha256. Therefore I wonder if it would fit the current block structure. |
|
|
|
|
I can buy or sell bitcoins for cash in Paris, France.
|
|
|
|
Hello guys, in attachment you can find Czech translation for Bitcoin application and Bitcoin web main page.
Thanks. I think it's great that the main page has so many translations. |
|
|
|
I also said that sweatshops are illegal (criminal) in some countries, in others not ... so it's clear that I can not mean it how you interpreted it from that too. You're trying too hard to disagree with me at all cost ... maybe you could stop that and I would make much more sense to you
Well, that wasn't very clear. After all, you *did* write "criminal is whatever gov says is a crime". But, to be fair, this sentence make sense, if you consider "crime" in a purely juridical meaning. The thing is that crime is also a common notion, which is based on philosophy more than law. |
|
|
|
Criminal is whatever gov says is criminal,
How can a statement so short be so wrong!? It is indeed very impressive. I suggest Macho to consider laws of the past, for instance. Prohibition in US, homosexuality in UK, slavery in France (not so long ago), and so on. Saying that crime is only what gov says is criminal, is just amazing. If the governement says the Earth is flat, I won't believe it. It's just the same for crime. |
|
|
|
It means they make few cents an hour keeping them barely alive while company like Nike is selling the shoes they make for hundreds of dollars in "first world" countries making HUGE profits for which their CEOs buy yachts and golf courses and jets to amuse themselves with.
Do you approve of such a practice? Do you consider it morally right and justified and it should be just that way?
I think those workers should form unions, go on strike and those kind of stuffs, in order to gain some better labour conditions. I would understand that. But I don't see what the employer is doing wrong, as long as he doesn't force anyone to work for him. Criminal is whatever gov says is criminal, in most developed countries sweatshops are illegal (guaranteed minimal wage) so that is irrelevant.
I disagree. Crime has some objecive sense, and law is only an attempt to express it. As whether or not I approve sweatshop, it just seems to me that the notion is very subjective. If a job is not forced, you can call it sweatshop if you want, but I will approve it. Concerning Ponzi schemes, I don't really care about that. I'm not even sure it's that bad if it is based on a lie. Again, moral risk exists anyway. You just have to be aware of it. |
|
|
|
OK ... is liberalism compatible with sweatshops then? Toxic waste? ponzi schemes? If not, why not?
Well I'm not sure I know the exact meaning of sweatshops (I'm not english native speaker), but according to what I can read about it on wikipedia, sweatshop workers don't have chains on their ankles, nor are they beaten up to death if they resign. Toxic waste is criminal if it spoils someone else's property, including public property. I don't know about Ponzi schemes. To me, the bad thing about it is when there is a lie behind it. And even a lie is not a crime. Moral risk is one of the things you have to deal with in finance. |
|
|
|
How it does not make economic sense? I'm sure going to make bigger profit when I do not have to pay people than when I do. Economic sense has nothing to do with "free society", that's the problem. If slavery was accepted by society you bet your bottom dollar that it would be practiced. So the only reason it is not practiced is the external pressure from people like you and me making an ethical or moral judgment and disproving of that kind of action. We are willing to speak out, boycott and protest such a company - that is the sole reason they're not doing it.
Capitalism is not liberalism. The former is compatible with slavery, the latter is not. In a capitalist world, slaves could be considered as a mean of production, like any other. But such a society would not be liberal. The thing is : most people here are BOTH capitalists AND liberals. Well, at least I am. |
|
|
|
It's the same with people working at sweatshops ... you do not have to work there religious free marketers will say, you can refuse and die on the street corner. Yeah, it's your choice ... you see, you're free! As much as slaves were free not to obey their master ... they could do that, so why the need to abolish slavery, duh ...
Other points are easy to refute, but this one is interesting. Honnestly as a capitalist I reckon there is a little philosophical issue here. It's all about the concept of "wage slave". Is a worker really free to resign if he doesn't like his job ?? If this means he has to face financial difficulties, possibly poverty and starvation, is it compatible with freedom ? I personnaly think so. Personnaly I resigned several times in my life. I've never regretted it, and I just don't believe in the "wage slave" concept. But I understand it is a huge debate, which goes way beyond the debate about money and bitcoin. If you are afraid of material factors such as lack of money or lack of professional perspective, then you will never be free. If you believe you are a slave because you need money, then your master is not your employer. It is your lack of courage. |
|
|
|
I do see what you're saying, biggest issue with that sort of thing is that it adds to the complexity for everyone playing when most people aren't going to worry about checking the results every time. I suppose it could be setup to be optional, have a set default and accept payment anytime after the address is given but also allow some user input that will verifiably change the result as long as it is received before the payment. Even just a user specified coordinate offset with the way it works now would have the same effect.
Well, this enters the category of "mental poker" games, and thus it is indeed a bit complex. But complexity is a price to pay if you want your website to be a fair game place. I'd also have a few things to say about when exactly should the paiement occur. I'll talk about that later. Also, if someday I can manage to have my website working again on freeshell.org, I may implement an prototype of a fair playing roulette game. I don't bet nor gamble. I don't like this kind of activities, but I'm surely interested in the "mental poker" problem, from a purely technical aspect. |
|
|
|
My views on speculation: 1. It's based on voluntary trade, hence not immoral. Banning speculation means to make a threat of violence against voluntary traders. That's also hypocrisy; you need to make an economical speculation yourself if you are to condemn someone as a speculator. 2. Speculation is economically beneficial, as pointed out by others. When speculators see a shortage is coming, their action drives up the prices and adds to the incentive to increase production, smoothing or even preventing the forthcoming crisis. Similarly it helps decrease excess production before it starts causing problems. Speculation, along with other phenomena of the free market, is a beautiful organic and emergent process that channels future expectations and information into the structure of production.  Doesn't bother me if someone makes a profit out of it. Also greatly improves liquidity. I think speculation has been entirely positive for the Bitcoin project. It's fascinating how Bitcoin got its initial value when the real economy didn't exist yet, out of the expectation that it would be more valuable later on. Read those wise words, Macho. |
|
|
|
I honestly can not comprehend this other than admitting that people have been simply brainwashed. They think that some virtual made up economic structure takes precedence over human values. How is this possible to achieve that people think like this? That if it makes profit it is good, that if somebody falls for it you're not responsible for him being robbed. That's like constructing booby traps all over your house and then laughing your ass off when your unsuspecting family members get slaughtered on them ... after all, they were stupid enough to walk right into them, right? Why should you who set them up be held responsible ... this is just some twisted logic, but it's real! Peope walk into those booby traps created by these people ... and they do get slaughtered en masse! This is no joke ... are you not concerned about that at all? "It's capitalist idea" is you answer? They deserve it? What the hell is wrong with you people?!
Why do you need to compare a commercial exchange to a situation where someone is falling into a trap and the other one is laughing about it ? When to persons exchange goods, it is because it is in their interest, of both of them. A gives x to B, and in exchange B gives y to A, because A needs y more than x and B needs x more than y. It's a win-win. Nobody is fooling anyone. The thirsty one gives food to the humgry one, and the humgry one gives water to the thirsty one. Stop thinking of capitalism as a way for people to fool others. Capitalism is part of free martket, which is nothing but the voluntary exchange of stuffs. There is nothing wrong about that, even in the hippy society you might be dreaming of. |
|
|
|
|
Seriously, Macho, you should reconsider what you are writing.
If someone thinks that for some reason the price of rice will rise, buying it when the price is low is a way to allocate capital in a way to predict future, thus preventing future shortage. If he's right, he's allowed the rice market to have a good foresight of coming difficulties. Which is good. If he's wrong, then he just gave up some money for no reason to rice procucers. Do you complain when people give you money ??
I think this is the point you are missing with speculation. The speculator is never alone. There is a second party. THe spectulator buys or sell something to someone. If Alice trades something with Bob, even if you consider that Alice is a shamefull speculator, the thing is that she helped Bob to fullfill his needs. And Bob could very well be an honnest, productive person, according to you. If Bob is also a spectulator, then those two persons have just exchanged some stuffs : it doesn't change anything to the rest of the economic picture. One of them will lose, the other one will gain.
I keep thinking that speculation is globally neutral, economically.
When people say that speculation has risen food prices, for instance, this is just non-sense. Why exactly, suddenly, has speculation arosen ?? Did people, suddenly, become more greedy and more gambled-minded ?? The truth is most probably that a central bank or some other centralised finantial institution has flowded the market with money. That is the real event that triggered the rise of prices. Not speculation. Speculation existed before the buble, and will exist after. Speculation alone doesn't explain a buble, for it is a human character such as courage, greed, fear and such. It doesn't appear suddenly to create bubbles out of nothing.
|
|
|
|
Actually, I do think that certain technical modifications to Bitcoin could mitigate the excesses of speculation, for example damping (Tobin-Tax-style transaction fees) and inflation (more bitcoins awarded for mining).
I very much hope no such thing will be done. If it is, I might very well sell my bitcoins as I will lose confidence in this money. Speculation is a zero-sum game. It is mainly harmless. Doing something against it would only add useless complexity into the system. If some people would like to see an non-fixed aggregate cryptocurrency, I suggest they fork bitcoin. NOW. Or as soon as possible. The sooner they fork bitcoin into such a currency, the more sure we will be that bitcoin will never be like that. |
|
|
|
Understand something, really: nothing can be stolen by consent. This is contradictory in terms. Not understanding the difference between lack of consent and presence of it is like saying sex and rape are the same.
Speculators are not stealing anything. Speculators are just people who try to predict future prices, aiming for profit. And, as always, profit adds wealth to society. Even the profit of a speculator.
A successful speculator is someone that correctly predicts price fluctuations. So, for example, he buys when a certain resource is less scarce, and save it to sell when it's more scarce. The action of the successful speculator helps to flatten price fluctuations, since he buys when the resource is more available (pushes up a downward price) and sells when people are lacking the resource in question (pushing down an upward price).
Interesting to note that the inverse also apply to failures. A speculator that fails will make things worse. As anyone that has losses, he'll be destroying wealth.
Memorize this: The more successful anyone is in pursuing profit through voluntary means, the more this person will help society.
+1 ! |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a young money. It"s thus quite turbulent.
|
|
|
|
grondilu: I'm not selling any bitcoins. All transactions are between the users. mtgox is just an exchange.
Oh, ok. Although I don't understand the one month delay I heard of, then. |
|
|
|
|
How do you get the bitcoins you're selling ? Do you really have enough sellers ?
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is based on the block number. I was asking just to get an idea of how fast it has been going long term.
Every 210,000 blocks. It should be about every 4 years. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
