This is more of a f2f practice, but given a certain level of trust put in the vendor (let's say 100% 1000+ positive reviews, since we're speaking of ebay) this kind of trade can become enough. It is true that there is a minimum level of trust to put in the emitter for any manner of private key/wallet trading.

I think hurr durr is a proper answer.

Long story short: Bitcoin finally got some power after a little over a year, bunch of jealous newcomers start crying about not having enough BTC
simple solution: less QQ more pewpew. Start your own chain.

On the asymptotic "minting": It is modeled after the idea that transaction volume is proportional to network size and the expectation of exponential adoption. The logarithmic coinbase reward promotes strong security early one, which will allow the network to bootstrap into exponential growth, increasing transactions that will eventually take over coinbased reward.

tl,dr: it allows early strong security on a model that is based on network size.

Publish the wallet public address on the add. Potential buyers can verify the BTC are still there. Or bitbills, yeah...

Supposedly the transaction fee. Although from my understanding, when the client was patched to handle 8 digits after the decimal, sending anything below 0.01 BTC would enforce a fee of 0.01 BTC.


4chan != Anonymous

There was a long time ago when they used to lurk /b/, but today's 4chan user base has very little to do with Anonymous.

Looking forward to it.

Join in late March. Fat is good =P.

If I'm not mistaken, a block with an invalid amount on coinbase transaction will be rejected by the network. IIRC, nodes use the address advertised in the coinbase transaction, but write in the amount of BTC reclaimed based on the network agreed upon standard. This is how you can't reclaim more than 50BTC per solved block right now. At block 210,000 only clients modified to still reward 50BTC per block would accept such blocks, which, if some miners intent to do, will fork the chain.

bwahahahaha

Come, come, gimme more noobs that think mining is cosmetic and deflation is evil. Feed the evil goat, feeeeeed me!

2 kind of information that spread on this forum like a wildfire: bubbles and "Japanese ladies"

Are we ever gonna have a short FAQ about this shit, or do newcomers just never read those?

+1

Actually the effective comparison to image the difference between IPv6 and IPv4 would be someone asking to up the transaction ceiling on blocks (sensible suggestion) or increase block resolution per hour (short sighted suggestion). The average single digit post noob's suggestion is more about complaining that the TCP layer or SSL should be scrapped cause they waste bandwidth and serve no purpose or that web sites are bad cause the early website builders will be monopolizing global traffic and capitalize on it unfairly.

This has the opposite effect. The miners won't stop mining, and when the echange gets back online, they'll flood the market with their days of unsold BTC, crashing the price. That's what happened when BTC hit over $4 and MtGox got DDoS'd. Trading was down for a week, and when Gox was finally stable, BTC was at $2.5

If the network is producing a block every 10 minutes, I need to be able to inject my 2-3 corrupt blocks within that time frame, which means I need astronomical hashing power, like 90% of the network. If the pools are taken out and we are in the situation were one block is solved every 30 minutes for the next hour or so, like we just experienced, during that window, I need much much less hashing power to fork the chain.

You can copy the block chain at any point in time and start running it with modded clients on a different port. At this point you would have "mirrored" funds, both existing in the regular block chain, and the one you copied and are running separately. That technically wouldn't get in the way of your proposal, since it implies that the user base wants to move to Bitcoin "2.0".

Nevertheless the proposition seems odd. If Bitcoin ends up with a massive flaw and it isn't inherent to the block chain architecture, then it would naturally be patched over, without the need to jump onto another block chain. The block chain is simply a data structure protected with proof-of-work calculations. It doesn't hold any rule whatsoever in its data. If the block chain is somehow corrupted beyond retrieval or usability, you'd have to give it up altogether, and at this point starting over makes sense, but the data from the previous chain is lost to all.

No. This is why I'm telling people like you with either a pontificating disorder coupled with limited understanding of economics or control issues to start their own block chain and see for themselves to true nature of the blight they have given birth to. No one is forcing you to use Bitcoins. Bitcoins will only take over the entire international economy if its properties appeal to every member of the economy. Obviously it won't, look at yourself.


Current Bitcoin isn't unfair, you're just reacting emotionally to it. But that's beyond the point. Now I see the full extent by which you are detached from reality. You are saying in a late future, when Bitcoin will be known to all, you shall start your superior coin and everyone will drop Bitcoin and join yours on day 1 because Bitcoin is flawed and your chimera fixes these flaws. How is that gonna work exactly? If Bitcoin is flawed, it will fail, and you won't have a community willing to join another version of it in throngs from day 1. The very idea that a concept should gain public approval on the sole premise that it is flawed and a fraud is disturbing. If anything, you should start your block chain this very moment. Every second you allow that fraudulent block chain to monopolize people's mind is a second more of work for you to redeem the name of Bitcoin so that v2.0 can take over. On the other hand, if v1.0 is a success, then obviously it isn't flawed, your changes are useless, and no one will join your 2.0. Actually, let's call it Bitcoin -2.0.


What are they losing? There are 3 types of currency models out there: inflationary, deflationary, stabilized (roflol pixie dust). Entry upon the market doesn't affect your outstanding wealth, so the only meaningful effect is the appreciation of your wealth over time. With an inflationary model, you stand at best to maintain your wealth, at worst to lose it all but a tiny fraction. With a stabilized model, you stand to drink the cool aid. With a deflationary model, you stand to maintain your wealth at worst, buy a space ship with spare change at best. So I'd like to see how you're losing anything.



I get it now, you're 12.



With that level of inflation you're looking to double your monetary mass every 70 years or so...


Yet you want to change the currency to have governments adopt it. Do you want governments in or out of it? It's getting hard to follow you.


You don't like taxes but you hate deflation and are in love with inflation? 'scuse me wha?


The mother principle of private property is first come first served. Are you against private property too?

Now you got me lost. You're saying if Bitcoin works, then you'll start Bitcoin 2.0? I thought the point of Bitcoin 2.0 was to fix Bitcoin "1.0". If 1.0 needs to be fixed, naturally it can't work right? So how is it gonna make it to 2020 without your superior guidance? I say you should start your block chain right now. And I changed my mind, let's call it HurrDurrCoin.


You seem to be under the illusion that Bitcoins are actually worth $10,000 each and that the whole process of public adoption is but a mere formality waiting to happen. If that's the case, first you should quickly buy all those BTC for $8 or so, that's literally getting it for pennies on the dollar, twice over. Second, why would Bitcoin need to be "fixed" again?


So you're saying you think the fee alone won't be able to sustain good enough security. Your solution is to systemically inflate the currency. What makes you think people will switch over a taxed block chain when they can simply let the market figure it out on the original chain?


You say you like the idea of a free currency. But then you say you want to modify that currency so that governments start liking it too. This takes away the "free" part.

+1

There's already a block chain modeled around gold going on somewhere. Dunno if it's still alive or not. The reward for mining will slowly shift from "coin minting" to transaction fees.