People asking for more free lunches. I wonder when they will understand that there's no such thing...
Maybe after they've killed the people who promised them. |
|
|
|
|
That is no problem.
You don't see the transaction because you don't have the latest blocks yet, there are 127704 blocks total, you should see this number rising rapidly in the bar at the bottom of the client.
|
|
|
|
|
You've convinced me, I'm switching back to SETI.
Wait actually I don't have any equipment because mining is a specialized task that I don't need to concern myself with because I don't have a comparative advantage there.
|
|
|
|
|
So you are selling boys and girls?
|
|
|
|
I really don't think it's much a problem of loss of faith. In Brazil, from 1980 to 1994, the monetary base expanded 2.303.797.693.883%. Yes, more than two trillion percent. There is no faith that could have kept the value of such money...
@chodpaba, the M1, in the same period, expanded a lot less - 1.656.853.722.660% (1,6 billion)-, meaning that the multipliers we were talking about decreased considerably. They actually prevented the damage from being worse, in a certain way.
I'm not saying that faith can hold things together no matter what. I'm just saying that to a large extent the loss of faith requires the printing. |
|
|
|
It's a 30 minute technical job. It's an impossible economic one.
Let's just say I advocate spending 30 minutes to test your hypothesis. Obviously, the similarity to BTC would make porting BTC-related infrastructure fairly easy. I doubt many serious merchants accept only BTC currently. They added BTC to their list of supported currencies, so adding BC2 won't be any harder. It will be much easier. As soon as a few do it, people will see it and wonder what BC2 is. They will find a website and learn about the similarities and key difference. They will add some BC2 to their wallet and devote a portion of their mining power to it or inquire about it to their pool operators. Creating a BTC-BC2 exchange seems like an afternoon's work, if MtGox doesn't beat me to it (or my lawyer talks me out of it). Thanks -John Maybe I'm wrong, go for it. |
|
|
|
|
That's pretty ridiculous. Should he get a different version so he can save some?
|
|
|
|
|
It's a 30 minute technical job. It's an impossible economic one.
Users are faced with Bitcoin that has a well protected network with 400000 difficulty and hundreds of merchants and some good exchanges and the can get $100 worth of them for about $100. Now we have new coin with tiny difficulty, no merchants, no exchanges, and there is no benefit because you still only get $100 worth for $100.
Same with new merchants and exchangers, which network will protect their payments, which has customers holding value denominated in it, which has a liquid market. The choice is easy.
It's a miracle and it only partly has to do with the code. A lot of it is culture. You can't store value in code, you can only store it in people's minds.
You allude to the other problem, but I don't think you see it fully. Anyone who does choose Bitcoin2 has to think that other people will be coming along for there to be any point. But a person who thinks that people jump from currency to currency when there is no significant difference between them must realize that people are going to be jumping to Bitcoin3. This means people won't hold much value (or any) in your chain and you won't get miners, merchants, and exchangers.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I thought, so SHA256 needs to completely break to be a problem for Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
Yes, I asked Yu Sasaki specifically about the problem of finding a partial pre-image rather than a full pre-image. She didn't seem to think it would make things any easier. I don't think we can do better than this for now. If there's a weakness in (double) SHA256 that would make it easier to solve the problem Bitcoin uses I guess there will be an academic paper on it eventually.
Is it right that it won't be a problem if it becomes a thousand or a million times easier to solve? People will just switch to the better algo and difficulty will increase like when we moved to GPUs. |
|
|
|
It would only take a single interested party to maintain the connection between the two halves, and it would only be a trickle of data. I doubt that even China could prevent it.
If there were only one party linking the web in China to the web everywhere else, it would be way too expensive or congested for bitcoin to use. If it were open to general use it would probably get DDOSed and go down. What makes you think this? Remember, we aren't talking about one node that all 1 billion chinese people are using. We are talking about a node passing transactions and blocks between the two otherwise partitioned networks. The traffic just isn't very big. Exactly, this node wouldn't do anything differently than all nodes are doing now. |
|
|
|
I don't know about "no reason", but they can certainly come up with one. Look at the US. Ever since 2001, we've funded the majority of our wars with printed money and/or debt.
I don't know about majority (simple fact lookup I guess), but point taken. So governments can print for a long time without hyperinflation, it's the loss of faith that causes hyperinflation. No government ever needs to print 1000x the old monetary base unless hyperinflation has already taken hold, the truly MASSIVE printing is caused by hyperinflation. But sure, normal, reckless printing could trigger the loss of faith that triggers hyperinflation that then triggers trillion dollar bills. |
|
|
|
|
I just wrote an article about bitcoin on the back of a postage stamp. Space was really tight, so I think we've hit the big time now.
But yeah, it's kind of dumb, but print adds legitimacy in a lot of people's minds. And it does open to a different audience.
|
|
|
|
If the issue that you have with them is excessive use of force, how can you possibly teach them what you mean by resorting to the same?
The issue might not be excessive force. It could be excessive force against peaceful people. I wouldn't use an AM on these cops for this though, fwiw. It was bad, but it's mostly reversible. Can't undo this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html |
|
|
|
|
Comparing it the value the early adopters get to a tax is wrong. Most importantly it isn't forced on anyone ever, but leaving that aside it's still way different.
Satoshi and early adopters don't get new users money/goods unless they give up some of their coins, if they do that then they won't get that obscene reward you mention. Now on top of that, when ever they do convert their coins to usable wealth, no one is made worse off. Who ever pays for the coins actually gets coins, they aren't paying to be allowed in, they are trading value for value, voluntarily, meaning that they think it's making them better off.
You are more than welcome to try to monetize some other bits, but I think you underestimate the difficulty of doing that (like it's a super easy million bucks, but no one is doing it) and overestimate the cost of value going to early adopters.
|
|
|
|
|
Crying probably more appropriate. Laughing probably better for you.
|
|
|
|
The problem is that this is not necessarily only theoratical.
If I'd have a big mining cluster that burns a lot of electricity I would implement a safety net that shuts down the miners once the exchange rate drops below a certain amount where mining is not profitable any more. This could very well start a chain reaction because many people might panic-sell if large chunks of hashing power suddenly vanish. "Transactions are not getting confirmed any more, need to sell fast while it still works". This would drive the price down and auto-shutdown even more mining-rigs.
I think recovering from such an outage is not easy to do because nobody will trust the network to do timely transaction-confirmations any more, so the value will not rise again. Two month to get the network back in it's feet would be the end of bitcoin IMHO.
Everyone has different costs, there is no reason to think that a large chunk of miners will quit in unison. When a small amount do quit then difficulty will drop and some will come back or others will not quit. |
|
|
|
So anything over $10 is only bet in whole dollar USD right?
No you could bet on USD/BTC of 10.50 by sending 1.105BTC. |
|
|
|
The massive printing of huge bills is an effect of hyperinflation not (usually) it's cause. Hyperinflation is caused by a loss of faith in a currency. This can be caused by various things, massive printing is one of them and not the usual one. When people don't believe that their money will hold value anymore them immediately spend it on anything they think will. They don't want to wait and pay any price. Now if the government still wants to get hold of stuff they need more money than ever and they print it. It is already too late at this point. Eventually everyone gets it and no one accepts bills above their value as paper.
I don't know any example of hyperinflation which hasn't being caused by massive increase of the monetary base... I lived in hyperinflation when a kid, and the cause was pure money printing... can you cite an example when people just lost faith in government's currency, without this one printing it like crazy before? Erm, I can't. I may have overstated the point. Printing certainly could be the cause of a hyperinflation and maybe most are caused that way I don't know. A government that sat stable for a long time doesn't just suddenly printing instead of taxing for no reason, right? I am interested and will probably read about this more tomorrow, I'll let you know if I find anything decently convincing that agrees with me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
