|
Bitcoin is so new and already you want to regulate it. Amazing.
You should learn to separate people from groups and judge people by the merits of the individual person, not the group.
Judging someone because of something they have no control over. Again, amazing.
|
|
|
|
How is that handled if all shares are not submitted back to the pool? I like the idea, but it seems to be missing the key cog.
6. Miner finds share! Sends it to pool. If the share turns out to be a valid block, pool distributes winnings.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm understanding everything correctly, this is fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Obligatory pics or it didn't happen.
You're assuming innocent until proven guilty (pics being proof of guilt). Get with the times man, it's now guilty until proven innocent (so says dishwara)! Well, yah... that's all good but I don't care about guilty or innocent... I just wanted pics.  |
|
|
|
I've never stopped raping my sister...
So you're saying you're still raping her?  Well, I can't prove that I'm not, so I must be! Obligatory pics or it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
|
Responsibility is a bitch, but I'll take it over the alternative.
|
|
|
|
because stealing is wrong
private property is an illusion Private property is mutual agreement backed by force. Your sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Mutual agreement, by it's definition, does not require force. It's when someone uses force to break that agreement (initiation of force) that force first enters the equation, in which case a response of force is appropriate (and optional). Let's say: We can agree that you own your bike and I own my bike. No force required. If you try to take my bike, I can either let you (in which case I agree it's not my property). Or I can stop you (in which case I disagree and I'm simply responding to your initial force with force in return). You are the initial actor in trying to take my bike (you do not agree that it is my bike and are acting on that idea). You bring force into the equation and accept it as valid. If you claim there is no right to private property and use force to take what is mine, you respect the use of force, so you accept force to be used against you in return. |
|
|
|
|
Oh sweet Shiva, the monthly dishwara "someone is cheating" rant. (Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? How am I supposed to take you seriously when you do this so often?)
While there is a valid concern over Deepbit's size and I have been very vocal about it, your post is simply... laughable.
Three to four times the price for new coins you say? Amazing...
You go on to make some more wild accusations without any proof what-so-ever. Maybe the problem is you think like a thief, so you assume everyone else does as well?
|
|
|
|
Well is there a place that actually does showcase NEW stores?
I mean, yeah, I can look through that list every week, but I won't necessarily notice when new shops pop up.
If such a place exists, I don't know about it. |
|
|
|
I already referred to the list, but the point was that how is it supposed to function as a currency if there are only a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny number of stores willing to accept it. I think people forgetting that this is supposed to be a currency, not really an investment. (Or maybe to other it is supposed to be investment, but as currency it's not really good to have such a small people using it was a currency and the vast majority speculating in it.)
It's new. Stores aren't going to all start accepting Bitcoin immediately. Some might want the exchange rate to settle down. Some might not have the technical know how. Some haven't even heard about Bitcoin yet. Etc. It is growing though. So, we shall see. |
|
|
|
I voted "yes" because Bitcoin mining is useful.
Rebel! |
|
|
|
@rezin777: there's no such thing as 'absolutely resetting' a block chain, versus simply encouraging people to use a different one. if there were, bitcoin wouldn't be even remotely secure or decentralised. what i said ought to have been clear.
Indeed. I though you were suggesting that the current client be changed in some fashion to ignore the current block chain and use a new one. Obviously the current one would still exist as long as people mined with it. If anyone wants to advertise a new client with a new block chain, I say they should go for it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
So I've got like $5000 saved up so should I put i all into bitcoin
It would be unwise to put all your eggs in one basket. |
|
|
|
|
A majority of the new forum users may be new miners who are only interested in Bitcoin as far as they can earn some in order to instantly convert them to fiat currency.
|
|
|
|
@rezin777, it's absolutely not fraud. a new block chain does not compromise rights of anyone intending to continue to use the old one. it's not fraud to start up 'inflacoin' and suggest that people use it. it wouldn't be fraud for gavin to do so, or for him to release a client that simply started a new 'bitcoin' chain.
I have no problem with anyone and everyone starting as many block-chains as they wish. This is not what you originally suggested when you spoke about restarting the block chain. And I stand by my statement. EDIT: If I've misunderstood, perhaps reset (restart) is a bad way to explain what you are suggesting. Just say start a new chain. |
|
|
|
|
I would go so far as to say that anyone who has exchanged Bitcoins for other currencies and goes along with resetting the block-chain is committing fraud. Real fraud, not the pretend kind that people confuse high risk investments with.
|
|
|
|
Sounds like they are overheating. What is the temps of the cards?
... both of them at 100% activity and at around 75 celcius.
Today, I wake up and are at around 68 to 70 celcius.
|
|
|
|
I think the real question is whether or not bitcoin will appeal to the majority of people who are happy with our current financial system. If it doesn't, bitcoin may fade away or end up as a niche currency used for a tiny percentage of global financial transactions.
I think one of the problems with acceptance will be that people won't realize why Bitcoin is better. It's not that they are happy with the current system, but that they don't understand why they shouldn't be happy with it to begin with. An ignorance is bliss type of thing. And then there are the people who defend the current system for whatever reason. I've seen a bunch of intelligent people put a whole lot of effort in pointing out Bitcoin's faults all while defending the system they are used to. So it usually does tend to come down to politics. If you are a big fan of other people controlling things for you, and a surprisingly large number of people are, you won't see any benefit to using Bitcoin. I agree with davout, the more damage the current financial system causes, the more people will value something like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
That doesn't change the fact that the market is free and that the transaction fees would have to be competitive. Anyone who charged a transaction fee that's big enough to pay for public services will be undercut by miners who cover their costs and make a modest profit.
The transaction fee and the hashing power of those who charge it would have to be competitive. Most of the miners aren't solo. They will do what the pool they are in does. If the big pools wants to charge a high fee on transactions, it might be that lower fee transactions take much longer to process. A huge percentage of miners don't seem to want to go solo (or switch pools even) to make more money now, why would they go solo (or switch pools) to make more money in the future? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
