About Greg Fish: "Greg Fish is a computer science grad student and science blogger whose work appears on BusinessWeek, Discovery News and The Panda’s Thumb, and featured on Bad Astronomy, SEED, and io9. He specializes in writing about unusual cutting edge science and promoting skepticism and sound scientific education." The author asserts "Nakamoto never intended to have large bitcoin pools concentrated in few hands or to have users hand over a large virtual wallet to online repositories which functioned exactly like the banks that were meant to be made obsolete by the P2P nature of the currency. " This is demostratablely not so. I've seen posts on this forum by him/her that imply that he expected some consolidation of hashing power into professional mining groups, and that when the time was right, a parrallel transaction clearing network would arise that would leave the main bitcoin network as a kind of user accessible 'backbone'. It may or may not have occurred as s/he imagined it, but that is part of the point. The rise of professional financial bitcoin services is not what s/he was trying to prevent; but instead prevent a form of central bank from arising that could dominate the network. Although it requires that we pay attention, any mining pool that approaches the 51% mark gets knocked around by the membership. This gwill no longer be necessary after a certain size, much like it's no longer necessary for us to be too concerned about a single majority attacker today. The pools, at least, can't really hide their network power. The properties of mining pools or how they are supposed to work is all very interesting, of course Bitcoin makes sense within it's own framework. There are dozens of folks around here who can recite the rules of Bitcoin, there don't seem to be many right now who are thinking outside the Bitcoin Box. For example, from my point of view, mining is a crude energy-wasting hack and a sucker game for miners who should and will achieve a near zero rate of return over time. The arms race to mine faster and faster may not affect bitcoin within itself, but does have consequences one would hope weren't by design. In any case I made a point of leading with the phrase 'The author asserts', as what "Nakamoto" may have anticipated in the design versus actual outcomes simply can't be addressed by others, including those who cite what are *perhaps* postings by him/her/it. Your response completely overlooks the consequences of the uneven concentration of economic power within the tiny world of Bitcoin in the form of exchanges. In this area the author of the article makes a point which is valid, not to say obvious, irrespective of what the alleged thoughts of Nakamoto may be. Given the orphan status of Bitcoin's design and implementation, it makes particular sense to look at it as it is, not as it is *supposed* to be. So far it certainly doesn't have a flexible history of adapting to unintended consequences, and explanations to the effect that consequences are within the design are entirely too convenient to spin up out of whole cloth.
|
|
|
About Greg Fish: "Greg Fish is a computer science grad student and science blogger whose work appears on BusinessWeek, Discovery News and The Panda’s Thumb, and featured on Bad Astronomy, SEED, and io9. He specializes in writing about unusual cutting edge science and promoting skepticism and sound scientific education." The author asserts "Nakamoto never intended to have large bitcoin pools concentrated in few hands or to have users hand over a large virtual wallet to online repositories which functioned exactly like the banks that were meant to be made obsolete by the P2P nature of the currency. " I guess Bitcoin didn't really fix the problem of concentration of control, now did it? This is made even more painful by the small, small size of the bc universe. So small in fact, that it resembles nothing so much as the world of low market capitalization penny stocks, where the total value of shares outstanding in a given issue is so small that it can be manipulated by a single player or a few in collusion. A private bitcoin wallet in your possession and control is a basic and nifty feature, I have some lunch money in one myself. It would appear that implementing the "possession and control" part is neither clear nor appealing for many individuals. Not my problem, but I've seen a couple of "I think I've been hacked by space aliens" threads here that illustrate why folks may be found who would gravitate to a deposit service, so bitcoin as currently implemented is not addressing their need. I suspect you would find that if the bulk of bitcoins were in private wallets used for primarily for in-kind exchange there would be less volatility as well, but at some point an exchange needs to take place, for example merchants receiving payment need to pay their bills in the local coin of the realm. Inevitably, these concentrations of value that link bitcoin with other currencies become vehicles of hedging and speculation - can you say Bitcoinica? This and other issues, for example the mining implementation and perhaps the mining concept itself, make me hope that Bitcoin is not an end state. It's a very clever exercise technically, but I can only hope what we have here is the testing of a prototype that should result in improvement.
|
|
|
I can't see why Bitcoin would have changed the MF Global outcome at all. Within itself Bitcoin does provide tracking of cash flows, but this is nothing that MF Global shouldn't have, barring destruction of evidence of course. I would tend to expect the funds can be traced, but at some point clawback ( pulling the funds back to the owners ) is just not feasible economically. It will be a wonderful thing for many expensive lawyers to pursue for easily a decade to come, and that is after all what living is really all about, never forget that the rest of us are here only to serve them ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, narrated by Gilbert Gottfried
With Commentary by Fran Drescher. Yes me too. +1 If anyone has a link to the audio book, please post.
|
|
|
I think that's a record for me, I am now a delusional right wing libertarian idiot, all from one post - I think I'll put that as my sig. Can someone be a right wing libertarian? Isn't that like a socialist capitalist? What do I know anyway, I'm a delusional idiot who uses bitcoins and thinks war has a lot to do with governments.
In the USA, the largest group of Libertarians are led by Ron Paul who is a Republican Presidential Candidate. They may not be as right wing as Newt Gingrich, but his son Rand Paul is a complete wing nut on the far right. There's a leading theory that vaccines are a major cause of libertarianism in the U.S., although I think this may be a bit of a stretch based on the fact that Ron and Rand Paul both are affected by Asperger's syndrome. Thanks goodness for a state like Kentucky, backward enough that even a mildly retarded con man can still become a U.S. Senator there. Rand also distinguished by having himself certified as a laser eye surgeon by a state professional organization that he founded solely for this purpose. His inability to see any problem with this strategem is a striking example of the quirky thinking often seen in Asperger's.
|
|
|
....................
1. I'll make it easy, it's *pretend*, sort of like Santa Claus or jeebus. Credit default swaps were believed to be valuable until someone finally acknowledged what would happen when a significant portion of them were exercised. Then a pyramid of this always phony loss insurance collapsed and the CDS wasn't so valuable any more. There's nothing magical about P2P, even if bitcoin is using Tor or i2p or point-to-point encrypted tunnels, I can neutralize those nodes, my friends up the road at the US NSA track Tor node traffic all day long. All I need then is one physical location of a party involved or not and I get to shoot somebody's child in the face. It's a slam dunk, and totally worth it. 2. You agree then that the only functional thing one can do with a bitcoin itself is use it for exchange. It's not a commodity. You can't even drive a screw with a bitcoin. 3. All that is required to disable bitcoin is enough sanction to make bitcoin untenable for most people. Shooting children in the face will be more than sufficient to achieve this outcome, hopefully, the more the better ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) whoa, so much hate... hope they train you take those bullets back sometimes ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Evidently yanking your chain is like taking a day off to shoot children in the face, too easy, thanks for playing ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
These are just a few points where Bitcoin fit (nothing to do with ACH).
1) Bitcoin can be considered a decentralized currency. 2) Bitcoin has commodity like properties. As it happens to all commodities, its supply is limited, so I consider it "sound money" (unlike fiat currencies like dollar or euros). 3) In cases of war, hard political distress, "corralitos", etc. your money will be safe, unreachable by governments (much better properties than gold or silver in this particular point). 4) International transfers, including remittances by inmigrants, much cheaper than traditional banks or Western Union. And the list goes on and on...
1. Yes, for exchange, as long as the centralized idea that it *is* one is maintained by consenting parties. One need only witness what happened in 2008 when credit default swaps became the phony insurance they always had been. 2. Commodities generally have intrinsic value, for example, wheat. What can I do with a bitcoin other than exchange it? 3. Your money can be made unsafe by being made worthless, something a government can easily achieve without touching it. Hell, I can give it negative value, if I find you in collusion in the bitcoin network or hoarding bitcoins I'll shoot one of your children in the face. Don't be naïve about that. For that matter just call it counterfeiting, that's been a capital offense here and there throughout human history. 4. Banks and currency exchanges definitely feed mercilessly on captive customers. Alternatives are good. There was a time when the real (low) cost of funds transfer within the U.S. was less accessible to end users, competitive pressures have reduced this at least for some customers. Bitcoin does add something to the competitive landscape. As I said. First, Bitcoin is global. 1) I don't understand your point here. By "decentralized" I mean, Bitcoin is based on Peer to Peer technology (P2P), so it hasn't got a single point of failure. This fact makes it, in theory, more difficult to the attack of hackers, and definitely much more difficult to bans by government decree. 2) You can exchange Bitcoin for fiat money at exchangers, you can buy hundreds of products online (food, IT services, books, etc), and as I quoted in my previous post, you can transfer wealth around the world very fast and virtually free, protects you from Quantitave Easing of fiat money, gives you the freedom to leave your country in case of war even if bank accounts are blocked by a "corralito", and so on. So, yes, Bitcoin definitely has intrinsic value, in some aspects is even better than gold or silver. 3) Governments will have a difficult time destroying Bitcoin by decree, since it has world-wide scope. However, as far as I know, Bitcoin developers are striving to make Bitcoin legal and regulated. 4) Agree, Bitcoin offers fast and low fee transfers. 1. I'll make it easy, it's *pretend*, sort of like Santa Claus or jeebus. Credit default swaps were believed to be valuable until someone finally acknowledged what would happen when a significant portion of them were exercised. Then a pyramid of this always phony loss insurance collapsed and the CDS wasn't so valuable any more. There's nothing magical about P2P, even if bitcoin is using Tor or i2p or point-to-point encrypted tunnels, I can neutralize those nodes, my friends up the road at the US NSA track Tor node traffic all day long. All I need then is one physical location of a party involved or not and I get to shoot somebody's child in the face. It's a slam dunk, and totally worth it. 2. You agree then that the only functional thing one can do with a bitcoin itself is use it for exchange. It's not a commodity. You can't even drive a screw with a bitcoin. 3. All that is required to disable bitcoin is enough sanction to make bitcoin untenable for most people. Shooting children in the face will be more than sufficient to achieve this outcome, hopefully, the more the better ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
I have a proven system where it will generate you solid income no matter where the market heads next, up or down, it doesn't matter.
Here you go, take your tin cup to this place. http://collective2.com/To all those naysayers.... I have decided to NOT reveal it to you even after others vouch for me. That is even if you pay me $100. Trust me, once I start to get people to vouch for me, the price will be more like $500 or $1000. Others sell this for over $3,000. ROTFLMFAO! Boy, that really showed those naysayers! Are you 5 years old? If so you could hold your breath and turn blue until you die and then we would all be really, really sorry.
|
|
|
These are just a few points where Bitcoin fit (nothing to do with ACH).
1) Bitcoin can be considered a decentralized currency. 2) Bitcoin has commodity like properties. As it happens to all commodities, its supply is limited, so I consider it "sound money" (unlike fiat currencies like dollar or euros). 3) In cases of war, hard political distress, "corralitos", etc. your money will be safe, unreachable by governments (much better properties than gold or silver in this particular point). 4) International transfers, including remittances by inmigrants, much cheaper than traditional banks or Western Union. And the list goes on and on...
1. Yes, for exchange, as long as the centralized idea that it *is* one is maintained by consenting parties. One need only witness what happened in 2008 when credit default swaps became the phony insurance they always had been. 2. Commodities generally have intrinsic value, for example, wheat. What can I do with a bitcoin other than exchange it? 3. Your money can be made unsafe by being made worthless, something a government can easily achieve without touching it. Hell, I can give it negative value, if I find you in collusion in the bitcoin network or hoarding bitcoins I'll shoot one of your children in the face. Don't be naïve about that. For that matter just call it counterfeiting, that's been a capital offense here and there throughout human history. 4. Banks and currency exchanges definitely feed mercilessly on captive customers. Alternatives are good. There was a time when the real (low) cost of funds transfer within the U.S. was less accessible to end users, competitive pressures have reduced this at least for some customers. Bitcoin does add something to the competitive landscape.
|
|
|
When you do folding@home, you waste a MASSIVE amount of energy and computational power on useless calculations. Most of the results are wrong and can't be used. Once in a while, someone's computer calculates the problem correctly, and that result is the only one that is useful (possible drug or whatever). With bitcoin, there is massive waste, resulting in one calculation that is useful (transactions between a bunch of people get recorded in the ledger and money can change hands). You could argue about which single correct calculation is more important/beneficial, but other @home distributed computing setups are just as wasteful.
I think "wasteful" is the wrong term, because it cannot be avoided. I think "inefficient" is more accurate. These are problems which must be brute forced, trying every combination. Verifying that a solution does not work is not a waste, it eliminates one possibility from a great many, but it is also not really a "success" either. Coordination, like in mining pools, reduce waste by avoiding repeating computation. Hopefully most @home programs coordinate their volunteers. Others have mentioned the idea of the hashing process doing something "useful" IE: perhaps curing cancer or some sort of SETI signal processing, but there is a very convincing (although I can't point to where it is at the moment) argument as to why the hashing process can't be anything 'useful' in an outside sense if the integrity of the system were to be maintained.
I'd love to hear more on this. I'm still leaning towards believing the use of intrinsically valueless computational intensity as a obstacle/control is a design flaw, maybe even an awkward and artificial hack ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I'm also unconvinced that the desired characteristics of a medium of exchange like bitcoin should require it. There are inherent challenges with using BTC network computation for something useful: -You don't know when someone succeeds because no one knows the answer. The way hashing works, it is very hard to find the solution, but the solution can be quickly and easily verified. I don't know much about the @home projects, but this means a btc-style network will only work for certain types of problems. -but for the projects that can be quickly verified- -For a cryptocurrency to remain stable over time, it needs a constant string of problems with new ones every 10 minutes. Because these problems are unsolved, we don't know how long it will take to solve them. You can't trust a currency where the blocks could be 10 minutes or 10 months, it would be worthless. -The entire network needs to be able to start working on the next one whenever a block is found. If the problems are coming from some centralized research institution (ala Stanford), miners closer to the research would get an advantage, because some would have to wait for the problem to travel through many nodes to reach them. However, if someone can figure out a good solution to these challenges, it would be wonderful. Good. It's very interesting that there's a game in the mathematical sense that can be constructed called a cryptocurrency, there's all kinds of clever applications of cryptography. However, from there you went directly to how bitcoin et al. is implemented. Are you saying that spinning virtual wheels into heat on a cost basis that is open-ended ( the difficulty level ) and completely arbitrary is a functional requirement? If this was any other kind of system or machine, this would clearly be an area for improvement. What value is added by this property that is actually able to vary so much in cost? Game wise, I do like what seems to be the increasingly self-defeating endeavor of mining as an enterprise as more and more of it takes place. It brings to mind a donkey led with a carrot on a stick, the optimal solution is to see to it that the donkey only ever gets enough carrot to continue chasing the end of the stick.
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an interesting exercise in game theory. In particular the dependency on the process of mining is wasteful of energy and creates nothing of intrinsic value, it only serves to establish certain constraints within the framework of the game. In this aspect more than any other it seems the result of having only a hammer ( cryptography ) and thus treating everything like a nail.
The current interest in bitcoin itself illustrates the blinding effect of a limiting paradigm, one need only review this forum to see there is not a great deal of thinking outside the box going on here. This is further confirmation that we live in a great time for mediocre ideas.
So definitely, it is not wasted energy. It is energy converted to a stable monetary system, that no government can devalue or confiscate, a currency can be transported anywhere in the world much cheaper and much faster than any bank transfer. And well, cash is expensive! Security vans taking the money everywhere around the country, security guards (public and private), counting and replacing old and worn-out notes, fraud and counterfeiting control, hidden tax of seigniorage... A lovely sounding blurb, but you might want to do a little research about the real world. For example, I've done everything with ACH transfers for years now. The system is globally very efficient cost wise, and costs me *nothing* in direct fees. Other than having to break some quarterly estimated income tax payments into pieces of less than $100K, it's never surprised me or given me pause. Do you get a lot of stage coach robberies where you are, or what? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Sometimes 2013... that option isn't there so I did choose 'never'
There is the "May or later" option. But you really don't think it will at least spike over $4 at some point in 2012? I think there will be at least one tulip-style mania in 2012 for some reason or another, and it only takes one deep wallet to buy 50k btc and push the price to $4. I don't think so. Reason is that for every person willing to buy 50k btc there are two who are willing to sell for 'acceptable' losses, those who bought in during the dip to 4.08. Word. Think about the guy with the massive wall at 2.90 that got sold into. He's gonna be itching to get out soon likely, to rebuy lower or whatever. He's probably just waiting for the right time. Agreed. When tulip time comes, sell 'em if you got 'em ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
There's some self-indulgent fantasy bnllshlt about the good old days that never actually existed.
Really?? Would you infringe on me knowing that there was a high likelihood of me killing you for doing it. What's it like to live in fear?
|
|
|
It seems to be a great time for mediocre ideas in technology. Facebook is the premier example, it's not merely mediocre as ideas go, it's quite pernicious with respect to privacy and security, and wholly dishonest to the people who use it thinking of themselves as customers when they are in fact the product being sold. Bitcoin is an interesting exercise in game theory. In particular the dependency on the process of mining is wasteful of energy and creates nothing of intrinsic value, it only serves to establish certain constraints within the framework of the game. In this aspect more than any other it seems the result of having only a hammer ( cryptography ) and thus treating everything like a nail. The current interest in bitcoin itself illustrates the blinding effect of a limiting paradigm, one need only review this forum to see there is not a great deal of thinking outside the box going on here. This is further confirmation that we live in a great time for mediocre ideas. Things could be worse though, one would hope that there aren't a lot of people mining TulipCoins in a desperate attempt to get out from under losses on Second Life properties ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
I have a proven system where it will generate you solid income no matter where the market heads next, up or down, it doesn't matter.
Here you go, take your tin cup to this place. http://collective2.com/
|
|
|
Great, this will take some of the immigration load off of the undisputed libertarian paradise of Somalia.
|
|
|
The trading environment is very much like pennies in that the total size of the marketplace is miniscule. Years ago I knew a couple of penny stock scammers, they liked nothing more than stocks with a small enough market capitalization they could pretty much buy and sell the total float. Load up, pump, dump into the resulting buying. Lather, rinse, repeat. So, yeah, if you want to commit a relatively modest amount of capital, you could probably make things swing your way. Gosh, I wonder if anyone has tried this already? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
This better not be martingale bullshit...
It comes with stock picks? Oh, that really clinches it for me, it's musta gotta be great! ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.
There's some self-indulgent fantasy bnllshlt about the good old days that never actually existed. My my, we really need to hurt all those bad socialists who hate the hard-working good people like us, and long as were going right off the rails and back to the half-witted nursery, God told me to skin you alive, I have to do it, Jeebus said so.
|
|
|
I think it's a non issue. By the time Bitcoin has a substantial user base, there will be technological solutions to energy efficiency.
+1 This is already happening. Buttefly Labs is bringing out specialized hardware that can mine 1 Gh/s @ 20 W. Expect energy consumption to decrease as difficulty increases. 5 years from now, most mining will probably take place in specialized complexes in Iceland comprising data centers and geothermal power plants. Yes, a huge industry around doing nothing that actually needs to be done in the most resource intensive way possible makes perfect sense ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|