Spot on, Jaccubin. The Newbies section is a ghetto, plain and simple, and I feel a bit insulted and compromised to be even posting here to meet their arbitrary restrictions.
Real spammers need not be slowed by this farce, thanks to web scraping, Markov chain text generators, and a little simple programming to spread out fake introductions/fluff over a period of time. But those of us that want to play by the rules and bring value to the forums are being slowed down.
Quality is a difficult problem to solve in online communities, but rather than copy good work as Slashdot, reddit, and the like have, or innovate with something cool and potentially very useful like reputation networks, the people that run this forum came up with one of the most bone-headed ways to "moderate" this place I've ever heard of. It's something I would expect from the torrent/scene communities, but not from an above-board public forum.
Unfortunately, here I am, biting the bullet because I'd like to participate in the marketplace or maybe create some cool Bitcoin-based services and announce them on the forum, and I can't do that as a loln3wbz0r.
It's this or nuttin'. |
|
|
|
I just had a vision, clear as day. Here's what's going to happen. As the police state in the U.S. consolidates its control over every aspect of daily life, very soon they will impose capital controls in order to prevent people from moving money offshore. At this point, the black market for bitcoin will go thru the roof. Sites like ubitex will be discovered, ads will appear on craigslist, rendezvous points will be agreed upon and bitcoin will be one of the ways that people protect their money from confiscatory inflation.
This will be a tough, dangerous environment in which to sell, but those with smarts and courage will be rewarded. In this scenario, bitcoin price will be high.
You talk about this as if the government crackdown on capital movement is in the future. It's already going on. True, but not very many people need to move large amounts of value across borders. And if bitcoin is flowing out of the country to facilitate capital flight, then goods would need to be moving out as well, in order to get bitcoins to flow back in. Otherwise the bitcoins within the country become scarce. Keep in mind that currencies are just placeholders for goods, somehow those goods still have to move. |
|
|
|
How can you be sure that patents don't benefit the consumer? Perhaps they get access to drugs that they otherwise wouldn't get, because nobody would take the risk of investing in something that could be easily copied? Perhaps the monopoly I described is the best thing that could happen to the public, even if it is a limitation of their right to do whatever they choose with the pill, like copying it.
That's the theory, but the practice doesn't seem to really hold water. It's based entirely upon the business model that new drugs are priced at the cost of production plus a portion of the costs of research, which is how it actually works today. However, there could be, and likely are, better ways to mitigate the financial risks of research. For example, you never pay for UL testing, producers pay for that. Why would they do this? Because their insurance is cheaper. They either pay UL to test their products for public safety and function, or they pay much more in insurance premiums. It's a kind of subscription service. Likewise, insurance companies, or health care foundations, could fund the research using a subscription model. |
|
|
|
It only 'works' because it's temporary. Take it away, and everything still works just as well.
So now monopolies DO work? Good to know. I could have sworn I saw someone say that they didn't. The monopolies that do work, don't work any better than if they didn't exist. A benign monopoly such as a limted term copyright may not cause any harm, but it can still be a limitation upon the consumer (that's the point, after all) so the best case can never be acheived under the monopoly. Thus, on the whole, monopolies make the public worse off than they could have been otherwise. |
|
|
|
Force closes. Sometimes lockng up the phone, requiring me to pull the battery and reboot. I have a Samsung Intercept
Can you send me a crash report? Did you already clear your apps data after upgrading from an earlier release? Nope, I wiped it out. Sorry. |
|
|
|
For Bitcoin Android and any other future client that uses the headers-only blockchain.
I don't think the headers-only blockchain is the root of your problem. Can you try "Bitcoin Wallet"? (see link in my sig) Force closes. Sometimes lockng up the phone, requiring me to pull the battery and reboot. I have a Samsung Intercept |
|
|
|
First thanks, I think this client is a big step in the right direction, but it seems it still has some flaws:
I send me a money request by mail and send sent 0.01BTC to the android client in order to try it. I did this 8 hours ago, the transaction has 76 confirmations but it still has not appeared in the android client. I have tried to turn off WLAN and only use 3G in order to make sure it is not a firewall problem, but nothing so far.
What can I do? Is there any way to get hold of the wallet of this thing? Or make it somehow rescan the blockchain?
BTW: accidentally posted the same question already on another thread, but I think this one is the right one to ask.
I have the same problem - and when I checked application Details it is only 2.01MB - so something is very wrong. It looks like the blockchain isn't saving so it doesn't see the transfer, even though it is using the data connection. Any ideas? Application Details tells me a similar story, but by diving into the sd card I can see the file in the secured android apps directory, and it weighs in at 22 megs right now for me. |
|
|
|
Is this with "Android Bitcoin" or "Bitcoin Wallet"?
For Bitcoin Android and any other future client that uses the headers-only blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Although I can agree it's a well written document, I still say that Maybury's Two Laws represent the shortest body of law ever devised.
1) Do all that you have agreed to do.
2) Do not encroach upon another's person or property.
Granted, there is a lot of room for interpretation; but there is something to be said for a legal framework that can be printed onto a bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
Can I recommend a feature? If the phone is out of range of the network, or otherwise does not have Internet access, could this app use a shared wifi hotspot as an intermediary without access to directly transmit the transaction from the sender to the receiver's phone? Much like your 'Blinkendroid' app can send data to numerous phones if they are all connected to the same hotspot? This would permit users in the same place to transact so long as there was something like a pirate box available. http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox |
|
|
|
Excellent. Now how do I safely upgrade, without nuking my phone's wallet.dat? The market doesn't show this as having an update available. |
|
|
|
Price changes are not significantly influenced by difficulty changes. However, difficulty changes are significantly influenced by price changes.
If price followed difficulty, then we could all make ourselves rich merely by agreeing to increase difficulty tomorrow by 10,000,000x. Think what the price would be!!!
Except that difficulty isn't determined by agreement. Given the popular idea that difficulty follows price, I think that in order to estimate the BTC value at the end of the year, we must first extrapolate the difficulty at the end of the year and determine what price a Bitcoin would have to be to support it. By definition, it's impossible to predict the effect and use that to calculate a prediction of the cause. |
|
|
|
The guy who invented it is really a genius - Edison is nothing next to him  If Satoshi is, in fact, a single individual, then he is a polymath. The breath of professional grade knowledge required to produce this, and the rather sudden manner in which it just sprung onto the Interent in 2009, leads me to assume that Satoshi isn't likely to be a single person, IMHO, any more so than LulSec would be. |
|
|
|
Has anyone been able to get this to do any more than spin? Mine has been running since yesterday, has a 22 meg footprint, and still hasn't seen the coins that I sent it. I'm using a Samsung Intercept, but it doesn't force close like Bitcoin Wallet did.
Mine took about 5 to 8 hours to finally finish spinning (I had to keep the app open and running for a long time). It started Force Closing the next day though, which is upsetting, since it worked extremely well when it finished spinning. How large was your data footprint by the time it stopped spinning? |
|
|
|
What I think would be more dangerous is if he defines a filter that accepts some transactions, but not others. This would give him much more power than stopping all the transactions - so it's more likely to happen Yes, but miner defined filters are part of the protocol. It's expected that, in the future, some miners will simply choose to reject fee-less transactions, as an example. Future bitcoin-banks could choose to ignore transactions, free or not, that are not issued by clients of other banks that they have reciproprocity agreements with. Wal-mart could ignore transactions intended for Target, and vice versa, if they can identify them. None of this would cause harm to the Bitcoin network at large, and is not an attack. The worst thing that can happen to such a transaction is that it's in limbo until such time that a miner that doesn't discriminate processes a block. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone been able to get this to do any more than spin? Mine has been running since yesterday, has a 22 meg footprint, and still hasn't seen the coins that I sent it. I'm using a Samsung Intercept, but it doesn't force close like Bitcoin Wallet did.
|
|
|
|
But if he can prevent transactions and take all the freshly generated coins to himself - isn't it technically taking over the network?
Anyone who has such hashing power has to choose between assaulting the network and participating honestly within it. If said person has 51% of the hashing power, and participates honestly, he can capture 51% of the newly generated coins. He could choose to reject every transaction, and simply publish empty blocks, but this isn't an attack on the network, really. It does no harm, since transactions can still be expected to be processed by the miners who capture the other 49% of blocks. However, such a person could choose to prevent all transactions, but to do this he has to turn his miners to the task of reversing all of the blocks that are created by other miners, so he would still only be able to capture about the same number of blocks over the same time period. The effective hash rate of the network would be cut in half, but only if the attacker is successful at reversing all honest blocks before another honest block could be built upon it. The odds of this continuing for any extended period of time is remote with only 51%. |
|
|
|
But also there is a problem that if anyone would manage to take over more than a half of the network's hashing speed - then he would basically take over the network. Right? So the difficulty is also to protect against that, not only to make it more expensive to mine bitcoins? Though, I have to admit that these two things are pretty much related No, an attacker with 50% of the hashing would not be able to take over the network. Such an attacker would be able to prevent transactions from being processed, and potentially double-spend coins that he recently possessed; but would still be unable to do anything to anyone's coins that he had never actually owned. The 50% mark just makes an attack possible, it doesn't make it easy. |
|
|
|
Also the USD may be dead before the EUR is gone.
I'd guess you haven't paid much attention to the news, lately. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
