 ..of the downtrend |
|
|
|
good image in general. I think the middle section should be a mixture of the outside section colors. I know the middle words are supposed to represent both sides, but the stripes could confuse some people and make them think the words in the middle apply to one side or the other instead of both sides. For instance, toward the top, illegal goods is on the bitcoin color and legal goods is on the mastercard color. Anyone truly confused by this might read the rest of the list based on colors and just think it's stupid and wrong instead of realizing that they apply to both sides.
^i agree Great graphic, but Dustin's point in bold is important. |
|
|
|
Anybody still buying regularly?
I'm a HODLER but at a bit of a cross roads right now regarding 'do I stick with what I have' or 'keep buying'.
No positive news at all for a while now but then again no real negative news.
It's all gone a bit boring.....
I wish I could keep buying. In my fervor I over extended myself financially so I have stopped buying. Unfortunately I don't make good money yet. Patience grasshopper. Price is coiling nicely for a spike upwards. Mainstream media have stopped laughing and are looking to a new financial future. e.g. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f53524de-7bca-11e4-b6ab-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3KzJ5bohY |
|
|
|
not many people actually think that bitcoin will defeat FIAT.
FIAT is nearly dead all by itself, leaving people to voluntarily move over to bitcoin. without bitcoin even having to try defeating fiat
Indeed. Let's keep this simple. The one on the right is FIAT.  |
|
|
|
And this favors a fiat global currency (or regional currencies) gaining ubiquity. Which is surely what will be the end result.
Hahahahahhahhahhahha AAAAhhhahahahahahhahahhahhahah oh god hahahahahahahahahahhahah this is killing me hahahahahahahhahahhah stop hahahaha hahaha hahahahahha too funnnnnnnyyyy hahahahahaha...... |
|
|
|
Yeh, I remember that one, Proudhon's 5 minutes of fame lol  I guess Sydner Ember got hers today ! In fact Proudhon's most famous moment was turning bull at the April 2013 $266 peak after being bearish all the way up. Bitcointalk has not seen a feat of this magnitude since.
Well, if we made it to $266 then maybe I was wrong and the market is growing enough to sustain the growth.
Followed by a mass sell off by all. |
|
|
|
china apparently does not give a fuck about the auction.
 Yep. |
|
|
|
Awesome bubble-burst for some schadenfreude...  Of course, without the bailout it's chart would look like Enron, not gold's. |
|
|
|
ohoh  even i have to admit there was a point late last year or early this year when i was worried about the lack of tx growth. that clearly is no longer a concern and i am as bullish as ever. A contributing factor: 2.0 business bitcoin n tx reached 100045 for the first time, 3402 were counterparty tx, that's 3.4%
quite a bit of those were the GEMS sale held by koinfiy |
|
|
|
I raise this thread from the dead because as a developer, I am being affected by this issue and I want to make my opinion heard even if some people have already decided that this issue has been resolved already.
I choose ACCEPT AND RELAY because the sender pays to the miner anyway according to the final size of the transaction. it is the size used up in the block chain and only that size in combination with the fee paid to miners that should matter. The sender should be free to do whatever they want in the transaction as long as they pay the minimal fee to miners.
But why would anyone send such a small amount of bitcoins that couldn't be spent? Easy: to save a Proof of Existence in the block chain! Why not use OP_RETURN you might ask? Because anything behind OP_RETURN is non-standard anyway and can be pruned later. Proof of Existence is meant to be forever, and must not be pruned in any way ever.
You are looking at a small picture, not the big picture. Also please re-read all D&T's posts. The block limit needs to be increased and IBLT implemented within new block propagation before micro-tx become even more common. Then this thread might deserve to be raised from the dead. I have read the posts again but they didn't tell me anything that I already didn't know. However, somehow something made me change my mind about it and I now support the idea of having this dust threshold. It doesn't solve the problem but it wins us some time. There will be a day when the block chain is simply so big that only a few nodes could host it. The conflict here is that some people want Bitcoin to be forever and others (such as myself) simply acknowledge the fact that Bitcoin will become unsustainable and something else will take its place. Interesting post, I have always found your opinions rational and informed. When I first found out about Bitcoin I was super-excited about its potential. Super-excitement which lasted about two weeks until I learned about the limits on throughput and storage. I have remained just "excited" about it since, tempered with the knowledge that so much needs to be done. Although, a huge amount has been done, Bitcoin Core 0.9 is vastly superior to Satoshi's 0.1, and soon we will see 0.10 with headers-first for rapid node bootstrapping and synchronization. Greg Maxwell uses the term "low hanging fruit" to describe the range of known technical changes which can improve Bitcoin generally and its volume handling. Also, IBLT has fantastic potential, including reducing the 10 minute lag on blockchain consensus to nearly real-time, by enforcing a high degree of consensus on unconfirmed transactions. Bitcoin rides Moore's Law like a surfer on a wave. Most of the alts have the luxury of low transaction volume which is basically investors buying, selling and shuffling their wallets. All of them will struggle under serious real-world user volumes (if they ever get it). I remain very optimistic that Bitcoin can develop to become a significant factor in the world economy. |
|
|
|
I raise this thread from the dead because as a developer, I am being affected by this issue and I want to make my opinion heard even if some people have already decided that this issue has been resolved already.
I choose ACCEPT AND RELAY because the sender pays to the miner anyway according to the final size of the transaction. it is the size used up in the block chain and only that size in combination with the fee paid to miners that should matter. The sender should be free to do whatever they want in the transaction as long as they pay the minimal fee to miners.
But why would anyone send such a small amount of bitcoins that couldn't be spent? Easy: to save a Proof of Existence in the block chain! Why not use OP_RETURN you might ask? Because anything behind OP_RETURN is non-standard anyway and can be pruned later. Proof of Existence is meant to be forever, and must not be pruned in any way ever.
You are looking at a small picture, not the big picture. Also please re-read all D&T's posts. The block limit needs to be increased and IBLT implemented within new block propagation before micro-tx become even more common. Then this thread might deserve to be raised from the dead. |
|
|
|
So today's the day ha?
When do we find out about it?
Thursday 8am EST it starts and drags on for 6 hours, but they won't tell anyone the results except the winning bidders. |
|
|
|
Like you pointed out, there's a fundamental difference between the transfer of a bitcoin, and the transfer of a token that represents a claim on some external-to-the-blockchain property. In the later case (asset-backed tokens), all that is transferred is ownership (and ownership is really a social construct, valuable only to the extent that one's society is willing to enforce property rights [as control of the property in question remains a physical problem]). In the former case (bitcoin), what's transferred is control itself.
Thank you. This is brilliant stuff. Going back to this interesting area. Agreed with above. There seems to be a greyscale in the amount of the social trust needed to enforce off-blockchain rights, depending upon the type of asset involved. An example where the blockchain token can have good control in the physical world is where physical keys exist, such as car keys or house keys. If physical keys are made smart, activated by a verification signature from the same private key which controls the recipient bitcoin address, then cars and houses can respond only to their new owners. Usage rights pass with the bitcoin transaction. This is not watertight as physical locks can be changed, but the principle exists for the blockchain to hold access to some external assets, particularly other digital assets. |
|
|
|
Indeed. Your results looks very good. However, the first real-world IBLT implementation that Gavin wants to consider is to leverage Matt Corrallo's relay node software which already achieves nearly an order of magnitude reduction in propagated block sizes for nodes which use this service. So the data is no longer raw transactions, but smaller transaction hashes. https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNode/blob/master/c%2B%2B/server.cpp |
|
|
|
Actually I'm starting to suspect that this number was just manually changed. Think it was around 3.1 mill before this. Maybe Balduro just added the 1 mill that he gave to the Icelandic Cryptocurrency Society and is still preparing the 3rd phase of the airdrop as it seems that people who have claimed during the second phase can still not claim the third.
It would be nice if Balduro could give us some clarification. I understand his desire for anonymity, but that doesn't mean he has to go into hiding. Surely he can share his plans and thereby reduce the anxiety in the community. This is another factor in the AUR bellyflop. Even super-secretive Satoshi remained active on the forum for 2 years and made hundreds of constructive technical posts about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Gold? UP.  Even Bitcoin can't do that trick. |
|
|
|
2014 sucked. But bitcoin survived. To survive is to thrive.
The year started at $731.35, and is down about 50%. So 2014 is probably the first whole calendar year of downward value, but it has to happen sometime. Still 1 month left for a last-gasp spike into the new year :-) Bitcoin has posted a record annual gain, measured in USD. At the start of Jan 1st, 2013, Mt Gox had a bid/ask of 13.45-55, or mid-price of $13.50At the close of Dec 31st Bitstamp and BTC-E have 730.4-732 & 730-733, or mid-price of $731.35(Mt Gox is not comparable because its US$ withdrawals do not take < 1 week, hence its bitcoin price is biased upwards). Trace Mayer's statistics for previous years, now with 2013 completed: 2009 4,867% (uncertain price discovery period) 2010 387%
2011 1,320%
2012 170%
2013 5,317%One observation is that, so far, odd-numbered years exhibit high-growth, while even-numbered years are consolidation/growth periods. Even 170% gains in 2014 will be stellar. Happy New Year to all Bitcoin holders! |
|
|
|
Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size. The source code has already been changed - to add in the 1 MB block size limit. We were promised it was temporary. So, why even make baby steps toward something which is not tenable? The ONLY thing which can be accomplished is to ruin what is otherwise a solution with huge potential. We need layers which allow Bitcoin to reach it's ultimate potential as a truly revolutionary development. I can think of nothing more approprate for this than sidechains. --- I actually love the idea of 'treechains', but that is simply not tenable as a core at this point. Hopefully they can be proven on a sidechain. Really one of the most legitimate arguments against 'sidechains' is that they could foster developments which make the Bitcoin core seem so inadequate that there is a strong incentive to simply deprecate it. I'm not all that concerned that this will happen, and if it did it is likely that value would be imported from Bitcoin anyway due to it's valuations created by it's strong network effect. None of what you describe here, and want to happen, will mean very much if Bitcoin is not widely used. What separates Bitcoin from all the other alts is its larger ecosystem, the network effect of many more miners, users, holders and merchants. Allowing the transaction throughput to be crippled is the single most damaging community action that could be taken against the network, worse even than a 51% attack. At the current rate of growth this will occur in 2015. None of the sidechains, treechains or any other load balancing solution will be fully deployed, even if they are solutions to volume growth, (rather than just 2.0 applications). Further, global bandwidth is improving at 50% per year, so the existing 1MB is not just a fixed limit but a contracting one relative to the prevailing level of technology which Bitcoin employs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
