|
"equity law could apply to Bitcoin"
equity (law) is not the same as equities.....
equity (law) is about doing justice in the case despite the common law (sort of) sic. giving judges wiggle room
equities are a form of asset...
LLB(UNSW).
I am also thinking of starting a bitcoin/crypto law practice....the case is going to come!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Having had the pleasure of doing the law of banking as part of my LLB,
simply because I was interested in FRB/FIAT/APRA/RBA/BASEL etc....
stay away from terms like bank, money, currency, adi, deposit, spend, securities, transactions etc, it will make it harder of authorities to go after you....but as some one said ITT courts will gloss over this if their political masters want it to happen....
but I would be construing the whole system as way to send secure messages (that can only be onsent once having received), where people may agree to do things having received those secure messages, or they may not. A person may chose not to sell you anything if you send them a "message".
I realize that his would be really hard to draw people into BTC/Crypto....but it may also be hard to legislate against in this form as the legislation would effective cover emails as well, which is not going to happen.
Anyway the longer you keeps the Govts out, and the harder you make it for them to grapple with, the more likely it will be too late for them.....
|
|
|
|
The question is "Is Bitcoin ready for the world?"
At the moment, the answer is no.
This. Too many scaling problems right now...BTC can barely handle satoshi dice, much less an entire nations economy. This isn't the problem, its the way the devs are reacting that is the problem. If the devs all decided to figure out a way to expand the capabilities of Bitcoin whilst trying to remain decentralised then we could rest a little easier but this is NOT the case. Instead we got a witch-hunt against Satoshi Dice with many higher ups advocating a patch to block Satoshi Dice. There reasoning was that S.Dice is spam and they don't like gabling anyway, so its A ok to block them out. This is what will destroy Bitcoin, the selfish selfish devs that think Bitcoins will have value in the future when the network will be useless. Get this into your head: We value Bitcoin at over $40, because we think that in the future it will be worth a lot more, but if the network can't handle the transaction volume of a small local bank in Australia (where I live) then they will fail, and fail hard. Some of the devs are deluded that 7 transactions a second will suffice for a digital coin they think should be useful and worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They say that gold does not have thousands of transactions a second. But they forget. Bitcoin is not a shiny and useful element. Its a decentralised payment and store of value network, and if it take a year to transfer a Bitcoin then they cannot hold value. fellow ozi btc hi I agree 110% I think what may happen is that a faster day to day transaction crpto will arise eg ltc or TRC or something and bit coin will be like the gold behind that ...so you swap out 1 btc for 1 milllion and then go on using faster alternative with better implemtation for historical reasons BTC may act a the GOLD behind Crpto's or fail spectuacually as the live test rig for LTC TRC etc...see recent debacle, and the excuses rolled out why buy * could not * be found |
|
|
|
I support BTC-E listing, but I'm not sure about that scroll box on the side of BTC-E
its just sir spamalot with LTC idiots.
There's a reason the BTC-e chatbox is affectionately known as the "trollbox" on the site. And the constant LTC circlejerk is annoying for (almost) everyone else too. On topic, I'd like to see TRC on the site if only because it seems far less scam-tastic than RUC or NVC...both of which have been tradable on the site. There seems little reason not to include it at this point. You guys might be right about that. In thinking about it- not having the drama caused by the Troll box might be a good thing for TRC. It seems to be doing fine in both price and volume at Vircurex. THE thing I would do is encourage the VIRCUREX to use he graph system they have implemented on thier https://cryptostocks.com/....they have capital raised so should be able to do this and they have implemented it on their crypto site at this point I thin vircurex would be better than BTC-E I think BTC-e is going to be forced to come to you given how TRC is performing and going to perform.....it has far out performed LTC. I would rather seek that if they wanted to list TRC they can only do so if they don't have the spam box on the |
|
|
|
ALL VALID POINTS we need a suggestion here as to quantum resistant if there is one think we have learnt about the slightly advanced monkeys on orb 3 they keep at it until they can do it, and will f*ck anything just because they can or want to have control over the other monkeys...if they had a blow up the universe button they could not help themselves |
|
|
|
I can not into ripple trade any more?  |
|
|
|
Guess litecoin was very cheap a week ago.
Impressive how LTC is keeping pace/outpacing BTC. I'm supposing a lot of semi-knowledgeable cryptocoiners are getting bullish on BTC and funneling a lot into LTC as well. I don't think Joe Someguy who heard about BTC last week and bought a few yesterday is buying LTC. I'm curious what will happen to LTC prices if BTC crashes, re: is LTC a hedge against BTC price? Or is it just a tag-along. Actually I got into BTC just 2 weeks ago (though heard about it 2 years ago on 4chan...but could not buy in because of the country i was living in) anyway i finally go some BTC and the first thing I did was diversify within the first week onto several crptos There must be room for another coin and BTC may not be the winner in the end....so diversify... further I reasoned that some other coin at .00001 BTC can go to 0.00100, much more easily that BTC can go from 30 to 3000$ I risk 1 BTC and may gain 100 its a no brainer |
|
|
|
|
Does the person who runs Bitparking PPCoin Exchange hang out here? I need to pm them
|
|
|
|
A few changes will be published this week (mainly technically, hence not directly visible to the users but help with the overall performance):
- Yubikey integration
- Apache replaced with Nginx
- Asynchronous emails which will provide a much faster trading experience (for trades that affect multiple transactions)
As for the UI, a very tricky topic, balancing simplicity with wealth of information is easier said than done. I am trying to prototype a UI based on Bootstrap but it isn't going as fast (or as effective) as I wish.
I like the UI to easy to read lots of data fast, each page is compact bu has everything also hard to screw up a miss button press because of the release system and that it is a bit away from the sell/buy buttons the only thing I would like is a perhaps nicer graph, with volumes and more historical data, which would come with the graph but I do really like the UI read well tick easy to use tick hard to make mistakes tick compact/displays lot of data tick IT works tick what more do you want??? money spent here may not improve the return for you or me as a share holder....but I could be wrong its you business!!!!! |
|
|
|
Ultimately, for the network to survive, there has to be mass adoption and near insurmountable hashpower to secure it. ASIC represents the coming of age for Bitcoin. Why would anyone who is not hoping for a pump and dump not wish the same for Litecoin?
for this reason mass produced computers will advance faster than asics to ascis. Eg the amount of R&D into mass produced computers is far more than asics can match, so the next generation of intel/amd whatever will be far faster than the last. the next generation of asics not so much as opposed to the last generation. Thus an algorithim hash that uses a normal computers will grow larger with each generation more than asic generations. plus the potential of 100 millions as a userbase, not just 10, 000's asics. LTC being resistant to ASIC maybe the feature that allows it to overtake BTC in the end, as more people want to be in, as a miner/transactor as well as a LTC user. Further having millions in allows the network to be vastly more secure rather than a few easily identifiable ASIC farms |
|
|
|
|
I support BTC-E listing, but I'm not sure about that scroll box on the side of BTC-E
its just sir spamalot with LTC idiots.
Virx seems a more mature easily navigable site...also they have just capital raised so hopefully thier site will improve even more
So TRC does not need BTC-E rather its the other way around
I think TRC is a good compliment to BTC rather than LTC. In fact TRC could be considered BTC 2.0
|
|
|
|
What does UNCONFIRMED TRASACTION! mean in blockchain.wallet I just tried to send XX bitcoin from my blockchain wallet and it just said UNCONFIRMED TRASACTION shows the money taken from account totals but it has gone no where??? What to do now? is it waiting to be processed or what?? this has never happened before!!! WTF help |
|
|
|
|
my wallet 1.9 firefox add on
the error no longer appears which means 3 possibilities
[1] it was fixed
[2] my client updated
[3] a malicious hacker has back off as the alert has been thrown.
remember you security is as good as the system capturing you input...
|
|
|
|
My alert just tripped *** Serious Error - Javascript inconsistencies found. Maybe malicious - Do not Login! Please contact support@pi.uk.com |
|
|
|
|
well this is a fine mess one block chain goes sailing of into the abyss, but on the way people still think it ok and so cash in on int
it was the *other block chain* that was actually the real one, with no record of what is no longer the truth.
Oh look my moneys back!!!
Oh look i did not get those bitcoins!
|
|
|
|
This is not accurate.
There was, indeed, testing on the testnet with a full (1 MB) block. This was accepted by both the 0.7 and 0.8 versions. There is no concern here.
Slush's block should have produced the same valid block. However, the block was structured carefully as to expose a problem in 0.7 that was never discovered. Not only was this an extremely difficult problem to catch, but its finding would in fact not have been accelerated with a mixed testnet. The introduction of 0.8 into the equation would actually delay finding the bug, as it would mean less time spent testing edge cases on 0.7.
Source? @dree12: Do you mean it was done on purpose? Source? From IRC, all said by gmaxwell: I'd rather it go to the 250k level while we don't know. I'm not certian that it couldn't be triggered by a somewhat smaller block.
Seems to indicate that smaller blocks could trigger it. or 0.7 had another dumb implicit limit + which we didn't discover because our tests were inadequate to discover + and miners were encouraged to crank their block targets up when other than a few testnet blocks only a few max size blocks had ever been created.
Testnet blocks were at max size, so that type of testing could not have caught the issue. There are some with >2000 TXN and such, but they don't have large numbers of txins because I was spending 50 tnbtc blocks.
This seems to indicate that not even a large number of transactions specifically causes the issue, but rather a large number of txins. we don't have it fully measured and determined yet, but its most likely the number of transaction outputs being spent plus the number of outputs being created.
This supports the idea that only specific blocks could cause this. we have tests that make maximum sized blocks... but not one that makes large numbers of both inputs and outputs.
In conclusion, it seems that it was not in fact a "big block" that caused this. A small block could in theory cause it if the tx-ins or tx-outs were small, which is entirely possible thanks to compressed public keys. I did not mean my statement "structured carefully" to mean that someone has intentionally done so, but rather that the block's structure was rare and unique. So how many other rare a unique blocks can be constructed that can ____ the ____ out of the system? |
|
|
|
Ok I'm going to speculate that Satoshi is behind TRC
there I said it.
Interesting! Why do you think this is so? Tell me more ... [1] The similarity to BTC just with some variables change to address issues such as transaction speed, someone is using something they are familiar with. [2] The rate at which it is being developed, in terra wallet, appears fast, for say 1 or 2 people, but not a team of people that would do things differently, and by 1 or 2 people that know their code on this project well [3] Satoshi did not just pull out. He/she/they have thought about this long and hard, and seeded meatspace, you don not step back from that. The success has probably surprised them to some extent, but there is no way they could stay away, they are going to do a 2.0. [4] The add on features, this code insta pay thing...seems....to well though out to be causally integrated. Like you were trying to address something Minor [5] Ok the English level on the site (though this obviously does not mean satoshi was Japanese), but it strikes at about the level that would be just enough to not be obvious (kinda hard to express what I mean) [6] He is smiling/looking at you from the front page of the TRC site, or if not him how he wants to project from the inside how he feels, it just so optimistic/happy accomplished in a world of distopian/jadedness |
|
|
|
|
Ok I'm going to speculate that Satoshi is behind TRC
there I said it.
|
|
|
|
Litecoin only escaped because it hasnt been updated to the latest codebase.
And that is its strength, BTC functions as a test plaform for LTC and TRC |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
