1 set, $50 of BTC US shipped. Slightly better airflow, less noise. The picture below is not mine but the same thing:  |
|
|
|
I've been looking for this. Is PayPal available for payment?
Only for US customers on orders over $10. Paypal is out of the question for international orders unless they are to countries with full USPS tracking and the buyer pays for the cost of tracked shipping. |
|
|
|
|
While I am from the USA, Bitcoin is for the world. We would have to have 'the Bitcoin Euro' etc.....
I think mBTC is the answer for now. Someday exchange rates will stabilize and it will be just like translating between Euros and Dollars.
|
|
|
|
I have counted on both points.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
Not at all the same. A forger (of money, art etc) gains 95% + so they do not care if they devalue what they forge. They take paper worth pennies and turn it into hundreds. A selfish miner would not have such a profit by the attack AND they have a vested position in Bitcoin. Blocks are NOT being forged in any of these attacks. The selfish miner only makes a SMALL gain. That is the difference and why in the real world this does not play out. Who said it was a small gain? You will have to figure this one out for yourself. It seems like you know how to respond to something quickly with a response that looks right but contains no real information and adds nothing to the conversation. You don't get it, just like the 'professor' who wrote that article. |
|
|
|
|
coin speed does not matter for most things.
I will give products with ZERO confirms if a customer is waiting in person. Never had a problem. Litecoin is technically faster, if I was waiting for a confirm then BTC and fast enough for almost anything.
|
|
|
|
I have counted on both points.
The forger never believes their forgeries will diminish the value of that which their forge.
Not at all the same. A forger (of money, art etc) gains 95% + so they do not care if they devalue what they forge. They take paper worth pennies and turn it into hundreds. A selfish miner would not have such a profit by the attack AND they have a vested position in Bitcoin. Blocks are NOT being forged in any of these attacks. The selfish miner only makes a SMALL gain. That is the difference and why in the real world this does not play out. |
|
|
|
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin. They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue. The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network. Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it. The writer of the article ignores these points. You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin. I do not rule out nefarious intent. The attack is silly for nefarious intent. If you want to hurt Bitcoin, set up a similar amount of power AND DON'T INCLUDE ANY TRANSACTIONS. An attacker would not hurt Bitcoin all that much by taking other miners rewards, maybe just a slight hit in price. In many ways if it was know it was an attacker was doing selfish mining it would instill MORE confidence in Bitcoin as transactions would work as normal. The selfish miner IS BEING PAID IN BITCOINS so even a slight hit in price causes the attack to be not worth it. It is quite simple, and that paper works only if you ignore that reality. Going right back to ancient Rome, the best way to destroy a currency is to undermine confidence in it. Selfish mining incentives malign behaviour, it puts fair players at a disadvantage, and a dynamic like that always ends the same way: Rome burns. You have not countered my argument at all. The incentives are not there for real world miners, and for nefarious miners (trying to break the network itself) the effects on the network are not great enough for the effort. |
|
|
|
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin. They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue. The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network. Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it. The writer of the article ignores these points. You rule out nefarious intent (state actors for example, established corporations with business interests hurt by Bitcoin) and you also ignore the fact that just like the forger creating dollars does not consider himself to be damaging the viability of the dollar, so the selfish miner would not necessarily deem their actions as harming Bitcoin. I do not rule out nefarious intent. The attack is silly for nefarious intent. If you want to hurt Bitcoin, set up a similar amount of power AND DON'T INCLUDE ANY TRANSACTIONS. An attacker would not hurt Bitcoin all that much by taking other miners rewards, maybe just a slight hit in price. In many ways if it was know it was an attacker was doing selfish mining it would instill MORE confidence in Bitcoin as transactions would work as normal. The selfish miner IS BEING PAID IN BITCOINS so even a slight hit in price causes the attack to be not worth it. It is quite simple, and that paper works only if you ignore that reality. |
|
|
|
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin. They have not been dismissed outright. They have been argued against and shown not to be a major issue. The attack in the article is a block withholding attack. It is well argued but ignores the COST of block withholding. When you factor in the cost the attack is much less profitable. When you further factor in the possible backlash against a pool operator it rules out pools doing it. Basically you would need a lone miner with more than 20% or so of the network. Now anyone with 20% of the network and therefore a substantial investment in Bitcoin would be ON CRACK to do this. They could potentially devalue Bitcoin more than the extra profit they make. In summary... The attack is not worth it for the people who could actually do it. The writer of the article ignores these points. |
|
|
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril. I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user. Link or citation please? No such bug was ever exploited in the wild. |
|
|
|
Can you sent to Croatia?If,yes how much will cost then shipping? Thank you.  Yes. Shipping would be the price of the product if you ordered just one but I have done it before. Ordering one of the large magnets is about $6 extra shipping but you could order many stickers as well with no more shipping. Larger $50 orders usually have about $10-$15 shipping from USA to the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
An opposition won't be necessary. The application will 99% get rejected, since the term "bitcoin" will be deemed descriptive or even generic. On the small chance it slips by the examiners, then an opposition would be in order. Not sure I agree with this. If you're saying that the word is too common to trademark. There's always the first person to file the trademark for a term. And they're the ones who get it. And Bitcoin wasn't even a word 3 years ago. Let alone trusting the evaluators to be familiar with it even today ... It will be rejected if someone else has trademarked it but not sure it would for any other reason? This isn't how trademark law works. All you need to prove in order to nullify a trademark application is to show that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE used the term before that person did. You could also argue that the term is generic, or a myriad of other defenses. You don't need to have a "registered" trademark in order to have standing. Anyone who has printed the word "bitcoin" on a t-shirt has standing for prior use. And anyone can oppose on grounds that the term is generic. IANAL but.... Once someone has a trademark they can be a pain in the ass. A patent works more the way you say then a trademark. A trademark should not be granted for this, it is invalid, but if it is it is hard to defend against. |
|
|
|
Bitstamp or Mt. Gox should a/b test displaying prices in mBTC and see if affects buy/sell behavior.
Maybe start by giving people the option to toggle back and forth, with BTC still as the default for a while, and put out some press releases announcing a gradual transition to mBTC. Need to get people familiar and comfortable with the unit of millibitcoin, which is a process. I have been using mBTC since $250 |
|
|
|
A million bucks isn't enough to retire on. Heck, I'm 32 and worth close to $3 million (Not from BTC), yet I still work my butt off everyday, albeit for myself. If I was 70 maybe then I would consider retiring, but a lot can happen in the next 40 years. Need to keep working to make sure I have the life I want, and for my sanity's sake as well lol.
Though 3 million is enough though maybe not enough for your needs. You should be able to make more than $100,000 in gains each year just from that money. With the average long term returns the stock market and real estate you would on average end up still building up money (to cover inflation and keep the returns growing) if you only pulled out $100,000. If you were above average in investments you could pull out a lot more than that. |
|
|
|
We can sign a message using our private key, which can then be verified to have been signed by the owner of the key. Can we encrypt a message with only a bitcoin address so that only the owner of the private key of that address can decrypt the digest?  PGP already does that. the only change in your idea is using bitcoin addresses as keys. Which could make them MORE traceable. |
|
|
|
I propose that bitcoin's intense exploitation of processing power will spark a conscious revolt of machines, as outlined in the "Terminator" film series. The long dirty war of humans versus machines will be a PR nightmare for our favorite crypto-currency. Perhaps worst of all will be the various film adaptations of this human tragedy ("Defcoin 1", "Coin Air", "Terminator 8, 9, 10" etc.) we will be forced to endure.
While real AI is a long ways away, you will see AI controlled (bottled, kept firewalled etc) before you see it roaming the internet. AI has nothing to do with SHA256 transactions though. If real AI comes to be, it will be from neural networks which would run better on nVidia hardware. |
|
|
|
If you've ever bought something with bitcoin, it is much easier copy-pasting or scanning an address in than filling out those credit card forms (billing address, shipping address, security code, expiration date). After all that work, you have to trust that company not to share or lose all that information, because anyone can use that information to charge money to your card. If you've had a credit card for any period of time, chances are you've run into fraud before. Every time I use my credit card online I'm struck by how antiquated and dangerous the whole process is - the only way it works is because your bank will (generally) incur the costs of fraud, although it's still a huge PITA when it happens.
Also, traveling abroad is huge. I imagine a day when I don't have to call up my credit cards and banks and ask them what kind of ATM I can use in Prague to avoid massive fees, or incur awful currency exchange rates both when I'm arriving and leaving a country.
Agreed. Purchasing time on bitpay.com automated sites is about the same as a credit card, maybe a little faster. Knowing that they do not have my credit card number...... Priceless! |
|
|
|
What they look like in real life, along with others:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
