Value would increase? With a sudden cap on "incoming" currency, I think the economic value would substantially increase.
I don't think so, since it would be bad PR for Bitcoins. Transaction would take longer to confirm, which would really hurt. But the difficulty is adjusted every two weeks, so the effect on the network would be gone after that period, but still bad PR. This is not true. The difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks so that the previous 2016 blocks would have been mined in two weeks had the difficulty be what it was changed to. Assuming that 95% of the miners go offline exactly as the difficulty chances and ignoring variance, and assuming that no additional miners come online or go offline then it would take 40 weeks for the difficulty to adjust. However the likely result of the miners going offline is that the TX fees would skyrocket which would entice other miners to go online as the EV of mining would increase. Does this mean confirmation will take about 3-4 hours? On average a confirmation would take 200 minutes, yes. That'd be a hassle I guess. Zero-confirmation services would then explode, correct? Probably not. The nodes will eventually delete the unconfirmed transactions from their memory pool so accepting an unconfirmed transaction would be much riskier as it would be much easier to double spend a transaction. |
|
|
|
I would somewhat doubt it. I don't think that satoshi would have talked about his idea prior to his whitepaper.
It's easy to say that in retrospect but a whitepaper wouldn't have even entered his mind at the time as his idea seems to be something he was only in the genesis of (if you could even call it that) and thus isn't going to be that concerned about privacy when he hadn't even got a fully working idea, so this seems to be just thinking out loud more than anything serious. I don't think the flaws in paypal and the true need for a trust-less way to send money in a p2p fashion were not apparent in 2002. I highly doubt this. He took care about his privacy and things, this would be a mistake.
He took care of his privacy after he had something that was workable and ready to be released years later. And what's the mistake? Everybody is still none the wiser to who he is. It was much more difficult to protect your privacy back then so if that was satoshi then he would likely have leaked a lot of information about himself. |
|
|
|
The great thing about bitcoins is this, Did they supply the blockchain transactions of such claims. they can lie all they want, but the blockchain and proof of these overpaid transactions will always tell the truth.
To prove that they overpaid because of transaction malleability the information on the blockchain by itself is insufficient. They would need to show their database transaction logs as well, and how the hell would you do that and guarantee that these have not been tampered with? Blockchain data would be enough to follow the coins. It was 5% of the entire Bitcoin economy. All it takes is one slip. The fungibility of bitcoin is important, and we should do nothing to hamper that. However, I don't see an issue with following the coins. Maybe they didn't move all that much. Okay, quick example... Blockchain says three amounts went out of gox on certain date... 4.93852 BTC 9.8512 BTC 1.0002124 BTC Right then, who got more than they should have? None of them. You would want to look for transactions when there are two exact amounts that are both confirmed in nearly the same block, and are both sent to the same address. Once you filter out all the other transactions what you have left is likely going to be what gox lost |
|
|
|
Huh... didn't know that they're still alive...  In fact they're pretty small Paypal-clone (only $200M Revenue) and full in line with government compliance (see Wikileaks ban). It's hard to say this: Compared to Bitcoin, they are already insignificant. So they will die even sooner than Paypal. ya.ya.yo! Who said anything about PayPal dying ?  It exist since 1999 and it won't stop now . at least not with huge online shops accepting it as main payment method The reason so many small online shops accept paypal as their primary payment method is because they process their credit card transactions not because buyers primarily use their payment platform. |
|
|
|
|
The $140 billion number was probably transaction volume as around that time there was a lot of blockchain volume as, IIRC there was a large backlog of unconfirmed transactions for a while.
Either that or it was a typo and should have said $14 billion as I think this is ~ what the market cap peaked at during the last bubble.
|
|
|
|
No, nothing will end war ever.
As long as root of evil - money - of any kind exists in our world Wars are meant to happen. Nothing will change it. If you can gain something there will be war. Most wars are actually caused by and revolve around religion. Even with the lack of money, or the lack of potentially gaining some additional resource many wars that the world has seen would have still taken place. This is true. Religion has been at least one factor in every war in history and has been a major factor in most wars. Bitcoin potentially replacing fiat is not going to change this Even the World Wars ? Are you kidding about this? The axis (aka the German empire) were trying to exterminate anyone who followed the Jewish religion. I don't see how anyone would not know that WW2 was about religion....unless they don't believe the holocaust actually happened |
|
|
|
As stated before, it has nothing to do with them being afraid of bitcoin
Would we of had such hand wringing from them if the picture had shone WU in a good light? Probably. If it was shown in a better light then the satire could have left out some important disclaimer or condition of using their service and as a result it would add liability to Western Union. |
|
|
|
I have a question, which deals with Mass adoption. With all these Bitcoin Debit Card companies how is the average consumer going to ever be able to differentiate each one or even find one. bitcoin debit cards are not the future of bitcoin. They are the result of a few companies trying to profit off of bitcoin. It is likely that most bitcoin use will be consumers paying in bitcoin to merchants directly or via a reputable bitcoin payment processor. IMO most bitcoin debit cards will likely not be trustworthy and will likely turn out to be scams. It's not about being trustworthy or not, it's just that it may not make sense for the average user to change his fiat to BTC then back to fiat plus paying credit cards fees. I guess that's another story for BTC traders paying out their gains. With a BTC ecosystem functioning well, it may be a good way to convert gains in BTC to fiat, for small amounts, without wire transfers fees. I don't see how debit cards company would be less trustworthy than exchange. (granted these may not be very trustworthy to start with...) Paying what is effectively credit card fees plus two exchange fees is another reason why a bitcoin debit card is not feasible. You will however need to trust the issuer of the card to properly keep track of your money and to not get hacked and/or run away with your money. |
|
|
|
How the heck does one send BTC using a textmessage?! I have used apps on my smartphone but never text messages.
Privkey for an address with BTC in it? This is essentially what blockchain.info wallets do. When you send bitcoin to someone via SMS they will get a text message with a link to a private key they can import into their own wallet. |
|
|
|
Appealing via the email provided is probably a waste of time so I'd just wait for a response from BadBear, but using an alt account to post anywhere outside of Meta will likely be considered ban evasion.
I think it is actually pretty rare that BadBear actually responds to these kinds of threads. It has been said that the actions by the moderators tend to be anon to prevent them from being harassed from people they have taken action against. If you look at the post history then you can see that most of his posts are what I think should be considered to be spam. He also seems to have a very high post count when compared to the fact that he has a paid signature would lead me to say that he was signature spamming and was banned as a result. |
|
|
|
Does this include the following?
- Reading some words/digits in the online computer.
- Walking to the airgapped one.
- Manually typing the memorized words/digits on the keyboard.
Yes, even those methods are not safe strictly speaking. Theoretically a virus can trick you into recording the wrong data. A truly safe cold storage device can only ever safely transmit data out of itself, never receive input data, as such input data can never truly be guaranteed to be secure. This would make it impossible to even create cold storage in the first place. If cold storage can never receive input data then you would not be able to install anything that would create the private key or figure out the public key from the private key. It would also effectively make it impossible to ever spend any of your bitcoin in cold storage. |
|
|
|
A currency is anything that people place value on, over the what it truly is. The Native Americans used to use beads as a currency... now ISIS uses Women as currency... There is no end to what we can use as a currency.
They do? Can I exchange my girl friend for a younger one, like I can exchange an old banknote for a new one at the bank? Yes they do. They engage in human trafficking. I would not exchange your girlfriend as she will probably be raped and beaten by the people who end up buying her later. |
|
|
|
|
I would somewhat doubt it. I don't think that satoshi would have talked about his idea prior to his whitepaper.
This person probably was trying to piggy back off of paypal which was very new at the time
|
|
|
|
Value would increase? With a sudden cap on "incoming" currency, I think the economic value would substantially increase.
I don't think so, since it would be bad PR for Bitcoins. Transaction would take longer to confirm, which would really hurt. But the difficulty is adjusted every two weeks, so the effect on the network would be gone after that period, but still bad PR. This is not true. The difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks so that the previous 2016 blocks would have been mined in two weeks had the difficulty be what it was changed to. Assuming that 95% of the miners go offline exactly as the difficulty chances and ignoring variance, and assuming that no additional miners come online or go offline then it would take 40 weeks for the difficulty to adjust. However the likely result of the miners going offline is that the TX fees would skyrocket which would entice other miners to go online as the EV of mining would increase. |
|
|
|
To me that's only a couple of a percent chance of being personally affected if you happened to be transferring coin at the time of the attack. Then when it's noticed happening, we point dual Gavins at it and pull the trigger, 48 hour fix even if attacker paid someone to get them drunk at a conference the night before.
Yes, but Bitcoin will be permanently damaged by by removing the trust we have in the system from such an attack. and it's ONLY when a large amount of resources and planning has been achieved that you can possibly do anything else, at which point everybody is watching you like a hawk. With POS, it seems more like you can 5th column it gradually.
Again you seem to be ignoring that a disgruntled employee or outside hacker attacking a large mining pool without a large amount of resources can attack the network. You seem to be focusing on PoS as well which isn't exactly what the paper is talking about. People use the term "attack the network" a lot. Could you give examples, of what can really happen? What do these attacks look like? What damage can these "attacks" really do? Any successful attack would erode confidence in the network and would cause people to not want to hold/use any coins that are backed by the network. As a result the value of such coin would decline (like to nearly zero). A likely attack would involve spending the same coins multiple times, resulting in all of the people who thought they received money to actually not receive money. |
|
|
|
The nice thing about Bitcoin consensus is that there are no rules and no prohibitions. Anyone that wants to go against any of your principles and prohibitions is free to do so. The trick is to get people to follow them.
Well the thing is that people can fork Bitcoin to create their own altcoin whenever they want (Bitcoin is open source and anyone can copy/edit it). I think the OP is suggesting certain rules in which that would say whenever certain things are changed about Bitcoin, it will no longer be considered bitcoin anymore. |
|
|
|
I have a question, which deals with Mass adoption. With all these Bitcoin Debit Card companies how is the average consumer going to ever be able to differentiate each one or even find one. bitcoin debit cards are not the future of bitcoin. They are the result of a few companies trying to profit off of bitcoin. It is likely that most bitcoin use will be consumers paying in bitcoin to merchants directly or via a reputable bitcoin payment processor. IMO most bitcoin debit cards will likely not be trustworthy and will likely turn out to be scams. |
|
|
|
you sold 5 mh/s of Zen for $90 but wanted to post them for $900 ? so you leave GAW CEO negative feedback for it ? lol you should thank them. you came out way ahead. the zen are selling for $10-12 each now. i never thoroughly read your post till now. i thought you sold a larger lot size. seems to me like your moaning and groaning over nothing. put on your big pants. there are folks that actually did have mistake sales where they sold 900 zens for $18 total. IMO you should give negative feedback when it is deserved. seems to me like you jumped the gun. my .02  I am not sure why the OP is even still on default trust (especially after two long standing very reputable members were removed from default trust for much less of a questionable feedback). The OP is clearly trying to scam GAW by trying to get them to pay him an over market price of the hashlets he was "selling" |
|
|
|
Unless you believe in PayCoin, there's not really a reason to buy any hashlet at the moment: https://ltcgearcalc.com/hashlets-vs-ltcgear.phpIf you bought them early on (Aug/Sept) I think most people made full return/profit and hopefully sold them for more... but with the fees they charge and what 1MH/s gets you right now... probably best off to wait for a new generation of product. It is very unprofessional for a company to bash it's competition. The fact alone that LTCgear is saying negative things about one of their competitors is reason enough to not invest in their "service" I also think that LTCgear is almost certainly a scam/ponzi as they literally popped up out of nowhere with probably a hundred shills advertising their site |
|
|
|
Gawminers, LTCgear and PBmining are the noticeable absentees. I am almost sure that LTCgear is a short term ponzi, don't see it giving such a huge returns for a long time.
Both GAW and PBmining are spending a large amount of money in advertising and have been in business for a long time (while active on this forum). I would argue that if either of these companies were a ponzi they would have collapsed by now. LTCgear has has an online presence for <1 year however not on this forum (I think), plus people who are vouching for them always have an affiliate link which is also suspicious. You should also be able to trace any payouts received through a short number of "hops" through the blockchain to find a coinbase TX of a found block It will take a lot longer for a cloud hashing scam to fall apart than a regular ponzi scam. If you give me 1 btc for enough "hashrate" to earn .9 btc I can pay you back without buying a miner or getting off my couch. Yes, thats why these are the best ponzies to run. Considering that difficulty keeps going up, the investors may never get RoI, so the ponzi schemers don't even have to run. they will run into trouble with a btc price drop from say 350 usd to 199 usd. these stable 325-375 numbers help them if they are fake. GAW/ZEN has a lot of money invested into them. It would be interesting to see if the new move of 'PAYCOIN' works out for them. I made a few bucks with them but I have very little invested with them. Ever since I stumbled onto the nicehash-westhash = trouble for their genesis/s-3 setup I slowly sold off almost all I have with them. I would speculate that paycoin may actually help prove that gaw has actual mining hardware as I would imagine that much of the at least initial mining will be from gaw customers, via their cloud mining contracts |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
