Bitcoin has enough challenges as it is. The press is constantly associating bitcoin with SilkRoad, money laundering, etc etc... The last thing bitcoin needs is to become the official currency of the 'jihad'. Hopefully it's NOT sharia compliant in any way at all.
You're not just ignorant, you're an asshole. No I'm not a muslim. |
|
|
|
We will see what these unicons can do if they become real   |
|
|
|
Next up, is bitcoin mining compatible with leprechaun farming?
I'm guarantee many millions more people care about Sharia Law than miniature Irishmen. |
|
|
|
And you don't know much about mining. The fact that you are citing supercomputers when speaking about mining is nonsense. Please tell me, how the 10Petabyte of hard disks and the 710terabytes of memory are needed for mining?  and again, why should you build a supercomputer to mine? I didn't say anything like that ... I'm giving you a comparison with similar size of govt. owned installed equipment to show how far out of whack your pathetic cost estimates are .... First they would need to Phase I; spend millions just researching the problem. Then there is the phase II; protoype pilot operation to prove operations, scaling, etc and finally Phase III; the full rig. Each phase is put out to competitive bid and scrutinised by legion of bureaucrats who's only job is scrutinising so they make sure it stays on their desks for an appropriate length of time .... it would take at least 3-5 years for the project you are talking about. No govt. department is going to risk $100 million (and a possible cost blow-out to much higher numbers, billions?) on a possibly failed attempt to ruin a global community-based network phenomena. As I said you don't know much about govt. projects do you? You must be smoking drugs or something? Is Gabi short for gabby, as in "run your mouth off"? Exactly. Wouldn't that be some egg on your face if you threw $100 million into a black hole and all you got out of it was some bitcoins that cost you more to produce than the average miner. |
|
|
|
So we can't buy these with a bank wire?
Sure, just send the wire to mtgox  . |
|
|
|
I agree we need to clean out the bad actors (good article/podcast btw), but I just fear the collateral damage caused by pulling them out while they still have their hooks embedded in every aspect of the economy. |
|
|
|
Americans have to make stuff again and stop perpetuating this ridiculous notion that somehow those that work for a living are lower class.
Oh, America will make stuff again, but those who work for a living will find jobs harder and harder to come by: http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/ |
|
|
|
Randomly select: You can find randomness in bitcoins, but all of it comes eventually from the randomness generator in your computer, so it would be even easier to just grab an octet from /dev/urandom. The blockchain is novel, and the invention itself is valuable and other useful systems could be built on the same idea. Still, it hardly is intrinsic value to a bitcoin.
It's a bit off topic, and I agree with the on topic points in your reply, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant: With the blockchain you can agree use a future block as the random source with a published method of determining the "winner" or whatever you are using it for. When the block comes along, the operator can pay out the winner and everybody can verify that they did the right thing. This is an intrinsic value of the blockchain that does not exist in any other form (other than altchains), but I will concede that it the value of Bitcoin, not a bitcoin. Bitcoin, the network adds lots of value not only to bitcoin the currency, but for other uses as well. |
|
|
|
i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.
It's not even close. If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses. On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had. Serious question, not trying to be a smartass: If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean? I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset. Am I mistaken? naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short. WTF, how is that supposed to work? example: i'm an account holder at Fidelity. suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple. i am a short seller. for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long. if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares. if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares. in other words, sell what they don't have. So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference? not sure what you mean. you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares. if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short. if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line. But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you. its even worse than that. even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems. b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission. what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me? oops. when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution. they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008. it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets. it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN). Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position. they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis. i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short. pricks. now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm. Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees. the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make. i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short. Each layer of this onion is smellier than the last. oh yes, i actually smelled lots of napalm in 2007-9 and i actually liked it. That's the part that worries me about you... and maybe about myself. |
|
|
|
Gold is real and you can hold it in your hand and most importantly it does not need electricity or the Internet to exist. If there is any shortage of electricity to power computers or other devices needed to get to bitcoins or to run the servers it needs to run the block chain or the Internet then bitcoin no longer exist. Gold has been treasured for centuries because if its durability, something bitcoin does not have as long as it depends on electricity and the Internet to survive.
It depends on one computer with one copy of the blockchain surviving until the internet is brought back up if you have your bitcoins backed up on paper. |
|
|
|
In a name of science: QUESTION EVERYTHING.
I question science. Particle physicists had to remove consciousness before they could repeatably study matter on a small scale. All we know about quantum mechanics can be overpowered by our will. |
|
|
|
i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.
It's not even close. If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses. On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had. Serious question, not trying to be a smartass: If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean? I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset. Am I mistaken? naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short. WTF, how is that supposed to work? example: i'm an account holder at Fidelity. suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple. i am a short seller. for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long. if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares. if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares. in other words, sell what they don't have. So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference? not sure what you mean. you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares. if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short. if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line. But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you. its even worse than that. even if Fidelity limited short sales to the # of shares they have within the firm, a prolonged bout of deflation would cause all sorts of problems. b/c basically what they're doing is allowing speculators to come in and sell your assets w/o your permission. what happens when you yourself wants to sell your shares after they've already been sold by a short seller like me? oops. when you understand this you begin to understand why Wall St is for the most part a long only institution. they can't have too many ppl selling or shorting which is exactly why they put a ban on short selling in 2008. it would force a situation of too many claims on too few assets. it's also why they're changing the rules on me right this moment for a number of shorts i have on like Anne Taylor (ANN). Fidelity has unilaterally decided, as of a month ago, to charge me 1% on the gross value of my short position. they've never done this before and i've been with them thru the 2008 crisis. i think they're trying to get me to close them out as too many ppl are selling and trying to get their hands on shares to short. pricks. now imagine them allowing naked shorts where they allow short selling above and beyond what shares they actually have in the firm. Fidelity claims they don't do this but they have an incentive to allow this behavior b/c of tx fees. the more turnover and velocity of the shares within the firm, the more they make. i know they won't allow retail clients like me to do this but i know a number of hedge fund managers that for some reason are allowed to naked short. Each layer of this onion is smellier than the last. |
|
|
|
Weed has been under price for years now... fuck gold and silver buy weed and bitcoins. When bitcoin saves the world from the conflict we will all have plenty of gold, silver, and weed . And be allowed to have them  . |
|
|
|
Sorry notme but you are totally wrong. A 51% attack is not so hard to do. As i said, it is pretty easy, with 10 millions $ you can buy all the hardware, infrastructure and hire enuff people to do it. Keep to expand it? Beh, after such attack the mining power will decrease, not increase. You guys speak about profit, but a government have other reasons to destroy bitcoin IP blacklist Please, not the IP ban fail in 2013, you will blacklist no one, it take an instant to get a new IP Please break down that $10 million calculation for me. I don't believe you. |
|
|
|
i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.
It's not even close. If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses. On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had. Serious question, not trying to be a smartass: If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean? I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset. Am I mistaken? naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short. WTF, how is that supposed to work? example: i'm an account holder at Fidelity. suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple. i am a short seller. for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long. if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares. if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares. in other words, sell what they don't have. So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference? not sure what you mean. you actually have to have your own USD's initially in your account to be allowed to short shares. if you have a margin acct like me (allows leverage), you must hold around $1 of your own money for every $3 in share value that you short. if the short trade starts going against you (shares go UP in value instead of DOWN like you were betting) then you have to wire in more USD's to keep the ratio in line. But what if you are right?... If they (broker) let you(short seller) sell 50k more shares than they(broker) had, they(broker) have to pull profits out of their ass(Bernanke) to pay you. |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand, what is to stop for example Paypal from buying a shitload of ASICs (or FPGAs should ASICs all be a fraud) and shut down the network by DOS?
I fear such an attack would severely undermine bitcoin user confidence, send prices really low, and undermine incentive for other miners to up their game by buying new equipment etc.
I don't understand how a client update could prevent this problem. Wouldn't the attacker just upgrade too? Is there a way to distinguish between attackers and "true" miners?
I would love a good answer to this as together with scaling issues this is my main concern for bitcoin's survival and success.
Why attack it when you can join it? Because joining it can be risky because others can attack it. And attacking it if you are part of a money-making business could ensure give you a small chance for a large capital outlay that you eliminate competition. I am not saying this definitely will happen. I wouldn't own bitcoins otherwise. I just see it as a serious risk. FTFY Care to explain why you give this a small chance? Bitcoin is the largest computing network in the world. It would take multiple datacenters filled with hardware to pull off such an attack. Just the electrical infrastructure needed for powering the hardware and cooling would make this attack very difficult to pull off. Unless they can actually pull off >50%, they will only have a very small chance of maintaining the longest chain for any significant time period. Sure, if you crack 50% you are good... unless a new client is quickly released with an IP blacklist (not even a complete blackout, just don't relay their blocks, or relay them with a delay). If anytime in the months it would take to even start setting the hardware up the difficulty rises 10% you suddenly need 10% more capital before you can begin your attack. Project on this scale can't be turned on overnight. That said, at this size Bitcoin isn't a big enough threat to Paypal or anyone really for them to spend the capital. By the time it is big enough to worry about, it will be too late. |
|
|
|
I think this is very shiny: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfIt is the first thing I read and I was hooked. Haven't been able to get enough since, but then again I've got a degree in Math and Computer Science, and most people would laugh at me for being turned on by a whitepaper. I know exactly what you mean!! If you can't see intrinsic value in bitcoin after reading the whitepaper, you didn't understand it. |
|
|
|
i do understand the conversation that took place earlier about "selling" essentially being equivalent to "shorting" but most professionals don't view it that way.
It's not even close. If you are caught on the wrong side of a naked short you are looking at huge losses. On the other hand, if you missed the train on an upmove after you just sold your bitcoins you don't have any losses, you just don't have the profit you otherwise would have had. Serious question, not trying to be a smartass: If borrowing the shares is required to call it shorting, why does the term naked short mean? I thought a naked short was shorting without actually owning the asset to begin with, and therefore "regular" shorting would be shorting when you do start out owning the asset. Am I mistaken? naked shorting is when you don't even have to borrow the share from a long to put on the short. WTF, how is that supposed to work? example: i'm an account holder at Fidelity. suppose, in aggregate, they have 100 customers who hold 100,000 shares of Apple. i am a short seller. for simplicity let's say i have enough money in my account to allow me to borrow and sell those 100,000 shares to buyers looking to go long. if Fidelity is an ethical firm, they won't allow me to do that with any more than the 100,000 shares held at the firm, even if i want to short 150,000 shares. if they aren't ethical, they might allow me to naked short the extra 50,000 shares. in other words, sell what they don't have. So if you made too much profit, they would have to pay up themselves to cover the difference? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
