 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
|
Don't act like anarchists and know-it-alls.
--Ross
But ... we are a bunch of anarchists and know-it-alls. I'm a know-it-all myself, and I can't stand all the anarchists on this forum that think they know it all! |
|
|
|
What about when we need to go further than the 8'th case?
Well, if we name .00000001Ⓑ=1 satoshi, then that value would still retain its name even if additional decimal points were added later (which I doubt will be necessary). Whatever happens, that value has historical significance as the smallest possible unit in satoshi's initial implementation. |
|
|
|
1Ⓑ=1 diamond .01Ⓑ=1 emerald .0001Ⓑ=1 ruby .000001Ⓑ=1 sapphire .00000001Ⓑ=1 opal That way, bitcoinage can be measured in terms of carrots.  Seriously, though, drop the "s". IMO, that gives it a much more Firefly-like sound to it. Also, I'm in favor of naming the smallest possible unit a satoshi in homage to the bitcoin creator. |
|
|
|
In comparison to other online payment options like paypal this is quite a bad performance. What is the strategy to stay competetive with other payment processors?
I understand your concern. However, you are comparing apples and oranges. Direct bitcoin transactions are more analogous to electronic check or wire transfers between accounts existing in different banks than to a PayPal transaction. Even in our current electronic age, these can often take days to process. This is because there are so many banks and other financial institutions that it is impossible for any single bank to have built up a solid trust with all of the other financial institutions that exist. As you say, though, you can actually spend money instantly using a service like PayPal, or by using a credit/debit card. This can be done because the banking system has set up a relatively small number of services that all institutions can know and trust (Visa/Mastercard/PayPal, etc.). Essentially, businesses pick one or more of these services to support (i.e. they state which credit cards they accept), and will do business instantly with you as long as you have an account with one of these services and that service says that you have enough money/credit to pay for whatever it is that you are buying. These same kinds of services are starting to pop up for bitcoin as well. One such service is ClearCoin. Over time, a similar web of trust will be built up between businesses and these kinds of services, and you will be able to transact business instantly with bitcoins. |
|
|
|
 FTFY |
|
|
|
Happy to be of service.  |
|
|
|
OK I really want to believe in Bitcoin but I am starting to feel bad about it. My client crashed a couple days ago and I still cannot restart it, even after downloading and reinstalling again.  I've had similar problems with the standard client (version 0.3.20.2 BETA) running on Windows 7. Whenever this happens, there is a lingering zombie process running in the background and I can't re-run the client without first going into the Task Manager and killing the zombie. (If I try to re-run, I end up with two zombie processes and have to kill both of them.) You might want to check to see if you are having the same problem. I've been keeping an eye out to try to get a hint as to what causes the client to crash, but haven't really figured anything out yet. |
|
|
|
I think he was agreeing with you and telling others to stop.
Ah. I see. Well then, nevermind my misguided remonstrations. :-) |
|
|
|
I agree with cypherdoc that we need to have a more responsible attitude toward how we react to the use of bitcoins in illicit activities. I do understand that it is impossible for us to prevent illegal actions from being performed with bitcoins, any more than we could prevent them from being performed with hard cash. However, that does not mean that this community should actively promote it. When growing a new currency, public perception is everything. Bitcoin needs a squeaky clean image if it is ever going to be accepted by the mainstream public. And yet, we have a section promoting businesses selling Psychotropic Drugs on the bitcoin wiki ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade). I understand that these drugs are actually legal in some countries. But, that's not going to matter to most businesses that are investigating whether they should accept bitcoins from their customers. Most will take one look at that wiki page, see that there are questionable businesses being promoted there, and immediately conclude that they do not want to associate their business name in any way with that kind of activity. I would guess that there have been far more businesses dissuaded from joining the bitcoin community due to those advertisements than have been attracted because of it. It is not a matter of freedom of speech. Illicit businesses are free to advertise as they want. But, as a community, that does not mean we have to allow them to do it here. This is a matter of practical reality. If we fail to police ourselves, the governments of the world will be more than eager to step in and do it for us. They won't be able to shut down the bitcoin network in its entirety, due to its distributed nature. But, they sure as heck can take it away from me as well as many others on this forum. /thread Stop making asinine arguments and whining that USD does it too!!!  I must bow to the superior eloquence of your argument. Before I completely concede defeat, however, could you please specify what it is about my arguments that you find so asinine, so that I may have some cogent basis on which to reply? Also, since I never mentioned USD anywhere in my post, would you be so kind as to briefly describe what I am apparently whining about concerning it? |
|
|
|
I don't know if it would be useful or not, but you may be able to draw some legal parallels between bitcoin and the recent development of an emerging market for IPv4 addresses. See http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/042511-ipv4-sales.html?hpg1=bn . IPv4 addresses are starting to gain monetary value on their own, even though they are a purely virtual commodity, because they are in demand and there is a limited supply of them. There will never be any more IPv4 addresses created, and the world has essentially run out of unassigned ones. |
|
|
|
|
How about Parcus Licentia (Economic Liberty) as a motto?
|
|
|
|
|
If you insist on sending a bitcoin, please send it to Plato at: 1Dj1SocbbH9Lbb9aTdqSHB9AAjhdxNNZha
His bitcoin road trip is truly awesome.
|
|
|
|
It was inevitable the preachy, intolerant mainstream would show up eventually I guess ... kind of sad never-the-less, they never fail to satisfy the stereotypes.
That has got to be the first time I've been called "preachy". If you think I am a member of the intolerant mainstream, then you have no idea what this community has in store for it when bitcoin actually does take off. For the record, I am a libertarian. I do understand the ideology that those businesses have a right to exist. What I and the others have been promoting is the practical idea that a mainstream currency has to have a public image that is acceptable to the mainstream public. Currently, bitcoin does not. Although that has not played a factor in bitcoin's growth so far, it will eventually attract the attention of the powers-that-be. Governments may not have the ability to shut down the entire bitcoin network, but they can prevent my local gas station or grocery store from accepting bitcoins. Your ad hominem attack does not change that fact, and it is a problem this community needs to acknowledge. |
|
|
|
 I posted this in a thread a while back. I figure it kinda fits this thread as well. It's supposed to be an old picture of Mt. Gox. (I'm not looking for any contributions. I just wanted to share.) |
|
|
|
We should get a bounty started for campaign contributions, to Ron Paul, or similar.
Another idea would be to get a bounty started to donate to any congressman that will publicly accept donations in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I'll give my thumbs-up to all three suggestions. Thanks S3052.
Although it was implied in the suggestions, it wasn't explicitly stated that we should get all illegal content off the wiki as well as the forum. That should be done as well.
|
|
|
|
I agree with cypherdoc that we need to have a more responsible attitude toward how we react to the use of bitcoins in illicit activities. I do understand that it is impossible for us to prevent illegal actions from being performed with bitcoins, any more than we could prevent them from being performed with hard cash. However, that does not mean that this community should actively promote it. When growing a new currency, public perception is everything. Bitcoin needs a squeaky clean image if it is ever going to be accepted by the mainstream public. And yet, we have a section promoting businesses selling Psychotropic Drugs on the bitcoin wiki ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade). I understand that these drugs are actually legal in some countries. But, that's not going to matter to most businesses that are investigating whether they should accept bitcoins from their customers. Most will take one look at that wiki page, see that there are questionable businesses being promoted there, and immediately conclude that they do not want to associate their business name in any way with that kind of activity. I would guess that there have been far more businesses dissuaded from joining the bitcoin community due to those advertisements than have been attracted because of it. It is not a matter of freedom of speech. Illicit businesses are free to advertise as they want. But, as a community, that does not mean we have to allow them to do it here. This is a matter of practical reality. If we fail to police ourselves, the governments of the world will be more than eager to step in and do it for us. They won't be able to shut down the bitcoin network in its entirety, due to its distributed nature. But, they sure as heck can take it away from me as well as many others on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
Personally, it seems to me that the currency generated by the namecoin system should be focused on maintaining the network. The name registry is the primary aspect here. The coin generation exists to support it.
I just realized that my previous reward formula has a problem: R = C + S*T will indeed reach an equilibrium, but this is not a whole lot better than just a flat 50 per block, as it will tend toward a constant average over time.
However, if we add another term to the formula that takes into account the number of expirations within the block, then we might be able to fix that problem. How's this:
Reward = C + S*T + B*E
Here, C, S, and T have their earlier meanings. B is a constant greater than 1.0, say 1.05. E is the number of expirations that are in the block, which are costless transactions inserted by the miner that note when a name has not been renewed within the required time.
As noted earlier, the C + S*T part of the formula will tend to pull the average number of transactions per block toward an equilibrium. But, the B*E term will inflate the currency if there are a large number of expirations, indicating that the cost of maintaining a name is too high.
|
|
|
|
|
I just had a thought.
Suppose we allow any number of transactions per block. Each transaction costs a fixed amount (say, 1 coin), which vanishes once the transaction completes.
The reward for the miner is variable according to the following formula:
Reward = C + S*T
Where C is a constant value, say 10. S is also a constant value less than 1.0, say 0.95, and T is the sum of the transaction fees within the block.
If there are very few transactions within the block, we can assume that the cost of transactions is too high, and the C term will tend to add more coins into the economy than the S*T term removes. Conversely, if there are very many transactions within the block, then the S*T term will tend to remove more coins from the economy than C adds.
Over time, an equilibrium should result.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that generating a fixed amount of new names per hour is not going to work. The cost of entry into the system would quickly become prohibitive, when you consider the number of new names created daily worldwide in the DNS system.
Also, as you said, the system will need scarcity to some degree to prevent spammers. But, not too much to prevent the cost of registering from skyrocketing, which I believe will happen with the current fixed rate of generation.
Maybe we could we make the monetary reward tied into the number of new name requests within the block somehow. For example, allow any number of new name requests in every block. However, vary the reward given to the miner based on this to be slightly smaller. So, if there are 100 new name requests, then give the miner 99 coins as a reward, and require these coins to be spent on renewals. So, there will be a slight amount of competition for the coins, as there aren't enough generated for everyone to renew.
|
|
|
|
|
