lol good luck at 50%ing BTC need much power for that and at least 50% of intir network hash and then some. People tried and failed many times before and more hash coming on would be a mission imposable to do such an attack unless you had a big massive amount of people to follow it but highly doubtful. Maybe the government and NSA might able pull something off like that but still I doubt would happen as Bitcoin getting very big now.
Take another look at the premises here. At reward halving, when the reward comprises >99% of the mining income, if price is stable or declining... then we may see a lot of miners idling equip. Thus if reward halves, and idle equipment is roughly 50% of the equipment before the reward halving, it may be rented and an attack launched. If the premise conditions are met, it would not take a massive amount of people, or a government. It would merely require a great concentration of wealth. If other resources are added to this (force of law, hacking, massive data centers, governments, etc) That just makes it easier to reach the threshold. One method to defend against this, major commercial stakeholders (exchanges, etc) ought require more confirmations around this time. Many exchanges are also limiting transactions, and requiring identifications so even if it is attempted and successful, the malicious miners may not 'get away' with it. Other alt coins have more advanced coinbase reward systems that smoothly adjust rather than halving to accommodate for this. |
|
|
|
|
Esteemed buildings vote
Most Esteemed
Noble Palace(*)
Esteemed
Arco di Sergiu 1-S-N1
The Town Palace of the Prince of New Liberty 1-C-F1
The Palace of Culture & Science 3-C-A1
Citidel
|
|
|
|
How about using your energy to offer a solution. Sticking your finger in the eye of the process is counterproductive. It seems that the most productive people in Bitcoin are offering solutions and getting conversations started. Without Gavin coding and testing the very large blocks we would not be talking about it or working toward a solution.
Believe it or not, but seeing a centralized non-community based hard-fork process as a problem and opening up a discussion on a possible method to resist/hold off that centralized change until it is more community driven, is in fact offering solutions to problems. Here the problem is centralized driven hard-forks, not block-size limit increases. If no one likes or is on-board with the proposal, then there is little point spending energy on it. But if it resonates with some people then maybe it is. Oh, and people have been talking about large blocks since before Gavin took on his maintainer role. A method to resist is not a solution to a problem. It is a hope for stagnation. Since people have been discussing large blocks since before Gavin took it on, maybe large blocks are needed. I think Gavin's method of suggestion and testing is much more constructive than obstructive and I fail to see how it is centralised. Gavin's method engenders some centralization of nodes. A great number of nodes can be made to disappear by a single pool loading up some very large blocks. There are other problems with it, but this one may be sufficient for some folks to disagree with it. Node population is an important factor of scalability and functionality. The proposal harms such scalability in order to foster microtransaction scalability. The internet is not a uniform web of high speed links globally. There are great differences in costs and deployed infrastructure. Very large blocks may reduce Bitcoin to a Northern hemisphere usability. There are going to be risks with any change. Better proposals than Gavin's have been made and discussed, but they require more code. They are not as simple. One thing is sure, and that is if we do another hard fork to set-it-and-forget-it using a guess as to what the future of the internet will be based on current or past data, we are going to be wrong about that guess. Gavin's solution is a very good one from a software-development perspective. It is not a good solution from a protocol perspective. These are very different things. |
|
|
|
"Legal tender" is obviously bad wording. But California made a great thing and it's a great step forward for BTC. Just... don't expect the price get to 1000$ because of this, mkay?  "Legal Tender" would be a BAD thing. (It forces acceptance) California Law makes Bitcoin "Lawful Money" which is a GOOD thing. (It allows acceptance) California is unusual in that it had a really stupid law previously that made all sorts of commerce in the state illegal if it wasn't conducted with US Dollars. This new law fixed that, more or less. Most places do not have as many stupid laws as California and have no need of such fixing. So it is good, but not great and other places need not follow in order to be in the same situation. |
|
|
|
Gresham's Law is statement about the effects of legal tender laws - not a statement referring to any kind of intrinsic property of money.
Yes, though it may include the notion of an intrinsic property being in contrast with the governmentally defined value: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard260.htmlAs an outpost of Great Britain, colonial America of course used British pounds, pence, and shillings as its money. Great Britain was officially on a silver standard, with the shilling defined as equal to 86 pure Troy grains of silver, and with silver as so-defined legal tender for all debts (that is, creditors were compelled to accept silver at that rate). However, Britain also coined gold and maintained a bimetallic standard by fixing the gold guinea, weighing 129.4 grains of gold, as equal in value to a certain weight of silver. In that way, gold became, in effect, legal tender as well. Unfortunately, by establishing bimetallism, Britain became perpetually subject to the evil known as Gresham's law, which states that when government compulsorily overvalues one money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation. Hence, the popular catchphrase of Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good." But the important point to note is that the triumph of "bad" money is the result, not of perverse free-market competition, but of government using the compulsory legal tender power to privilege one money above another. So the notion of overvaluing and undervaluing suggests that there is some other value, (perhaps intrinsic), abstracted from and in contrast to, the value defined by a government. |
|
|
|
I find it easier to think of trust backing a currency. Trust of the receiver that the next person will accept the currency for the same value.
If that trust is gone, so is the currency.
Other elements (government, armies) are just derivatives of this main principle.
For 5 years existence, I think 'trust' in Bitcoin is remarkable. No government, no army but it still goes. Time to re-evaluate old dogmas, I would say.
Wise words. However, if we're dealing in a situation where the dollar collapses, it is a completely different ballgame and unchartered territory. Bitcoin having its value directly tied to the dollar right now presents a faster medium for companies to convert over to fiat. They are not holding. Now eliminate fiat from the equation completely. How much 'faith' would these companies have in actually holding/having to deal with other companies to buy/sell/trade goods using this technology themselves? My guess is nowhere close to the same amount. Unless some kind of insurance system is implemented, it's basically the wild wild west for traders and everyday transactions outside of friends and family. Many companies/businesses are holding back some coin. Probably more than you think. Especially at these prices after such a large pull back in price. They are rightly anticipating a turn around. If Bitcoin lacks the confidence and backing you claim it does, why isn't it languishing at a price less than dollar parity, ie, <$1.00? All other worthless fiat currencies are in this range, why not bitcoin? Overstock 10%. Also http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2oypbo/bitpay_employee_here_around_50_of_our_merchants/You made my point. Bitcoin is different than other fiat currencies which is why it's had such superior price performance in such a short time. All about context. 10 percent of 0.1 percent is a basically negligible amount for them, which is why they're doing it. If it goes to 0, it's a tax writeoff. If it takes off to the moon, then their negligible risk pays off fairly handsomely and they can give some high rank employees a christmas bonus. But I'd be happy to hear of more than one example, and for something that's actually substantial. I'm not convinced any company out there is really sticking their tails out and hoarding this stuff long term. Unless they absolutely love playing russian roulette with a loaded gun. Overstock also offers the option to the employees to be paid in bitcoin. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/overstockcom-offers-employees-all-bitcoin-paychecks-2015-01-09This is so far the largest company to make the pivot to enable full bitcoin economic adoption. It seeks suppliers that take bitcoin, it sells for bitcoin and pays salary in bitcoin. All voluntarily. |
|
|
|
RWWC IPO
Current situation:
3.5 million @ inf Haridimous
20 million @ 2.00 smooth IF
10 million @ 1.05 Roopatra
666.5 million @ 1.00 HM The King
-----------------------------------------
0 million left
(offer the amount that you want to invest, and the max price at which you are willing to do it, because the offering is for fixed monetary value, not fixed number of shares)
The share of the "pure monopoly profit" for windows in the University Main Bldg was 155 million.
We are astounded of the lack of interest, truly. This has happened before.
This is the deal of the day. 200 Million @ 2 |
|
|
|
we've already explained to you a hundred times how these SC's can't possibly be AS secure as the MC unless they magically somehow attract 100% MM which is a pipedream by my estimation. especially for anything more than probably 2 SC's. that assumption ignores miners who might actually NOT want SC's to succeed or might want to attack them due to the easy pickings with no consequences to their seed corn MC mining.
This would be tested with each and every MM'd SC. There is zero cost for a miner to go hostile on any MM'd coin with mining already paid by the other activity. |
|
|
|
Got half my gold short position back on yesterday at 1307 or 6 equivalent for DZZ.
Congrats on a successful trade. |
|
|
|
lol. I'd like to know his definitions of 'hyperinflation' and 'limited supply'. One of them must be weird... maybe he's talking about price inflation? I'd concede that limited supply is NO guarantee that hyperinflation doesn't occur... if and only if he would concede that limited supply is simply a better assurance that hyperinflation doesn't occur, than any monetary policy in an inflationary currency which is manipulated by groups that benefit from the inflation (central banks and governments)...has EVER provided in the history of money. He is being a pedantic ass, but a forgivable one. It has to be a very difficult job to defend an indefensible position for year after year. |
|
|
|
Triumphal Arch (to be named after some character in an exotic language)
The King has acquired a great lot 1-S-N1, and considers to build a Triumphal Arch on it.
The development would be a 22 m high, 37 m wide and 17 m thick Arch-shaped building on top of a 8 m high pedestal, which actually houses a single, 500+ sqm vaulted room, suitable for various uses from exhibition hall to market, or potato cellar.
Prince Joseph would also make a display of donation, or put better, the donation of a display. In gratitude for His Majesties guidance and protection of Crypto Town. The specialists strive to make a singularly spectacular view from the Triumphal Arch: Gerhard is the New Liberty specialist that received HM's favor for his work on the sulfur experiments long ago. He has worked on a special project to offer up, in celebration of His Majesty's Triumphal Arch: By using some old ideas with saltpeter, carbon and sulfur in a certain balance as is done for His Majesties cannonade, and with the additions of metal salts to the mixtures, the color of the bursts can be changed. This combined with some innovations recently described by Conrad_Haas that work surprisingly well. These subjects of His Majesty have practiced for decades launching things through tubes using bursts, as well have the Army Companies in the service of HM's army. Now comes the practice of launching tubes through tubes in succession, with bursts, and colored. It is by His Majesty' foresight and wisdom that he has selected the perfect place to view this practice.  |
|
|
|
This is the opposite of what is happening.
It is because we are worried about it that it is not a problem.
Whenever centralization increases, the twitter storms and articles splash everywhere and miners react.
So bitcoin's future is protected by the power of twitter storms and coindesk articles? Mind if I am not impressed? Seriously, I can't believe that a company would voluntarily shrink because some customers (who cannot choose their suppliers) complain about them being too big. I would expect it to merely disguise its size, by using two or more diferent names. Is anyone worried bout that? What is your point? The disaster did not happen until now, so the risk does not exist?
His point, and it is a good one, is that the available evidence points to a trend away from increasing centralization. 2012: 3 companies had more than 50% 2013: 2 companies has more than 50% 2014: 1 company (GHash.io) had more than 50% 2015: 4(?) companies have more than 50% Well, sorry, I dont see a trend there. Read up on mining pools please. Then check your assumptions. The threat isn't what you think it is, it is addressed in ways you aren't comprehending, and it is only a small part of the centralization problems. |
|
|
|
|
I took what fluffypony suggested to mean that priorities can be influenced by donations, so if this is meaningful or problematic to him, it might be worth some donation to bump it.
I am not noticing any problematic daily changes in practicality, so I really haven't a clue what has stslimited so flummoxed.
Databases are nifty, but they introduce all sorts of issues that require care. I'd rather it be right than fast.
|
|
|
|
so what the hell is this all about and how does this correlate with what somewhat else said the other day about Adam backing out of the SC debate with Peter Todd? https://i.imgur.com/l6rQvTO.pngI looked up the schedule on-line a few days ago and didn't notice anything scheduled from Blockstream at all. The web site which contained a lot of logos was terribly slow to load so I canceled it, but I didn't notice Blockstream popping up by the time I did. Frankly, after the 2013 conference in San Jose, I sort of feel that these trade show things are mainly a venue for bad ideas to be sprouted and grow so Blockstream being a no-show (if they actually are) is kind of a positive to my way of thinking. Bad ideas like how do we get coin tainting going, and since almost everyone on some supposedly important panel seems to think its a no-brainier it must be a good idea. The blockstream notion was pretty much spawned at the San Jose 2013 conference, as I recall. |
|
|
|
If a group of insiders can joystick the protocol to their whim, he will not be wrong. |
|
|
|
The Hypothecary Bank is concentrating on its core business (stuff for SALE)
BUT-4 ... According to the bids, starting from 15 million
The Noble Palace will bid 15 Million for Kalev, the Bank's BUT-4 |
|
|
|
The sun rises on the University Main building designedLikely the largest building project by stone consumption, floor sqm and price as well. - 24 q, largest development by land area so far (barring Citadel) - 35 m high, the highest building in existence - most rooms, probably (4th level alone features 28 rooms) - likely most windows ( see the pics) Exact number of classrooms (40 sqm) vs. individual study rooms/apts/hotel rooms (12 sqm), as well as the lux% are still undecided. Also if a second kitchen/tavern is wanted. The chapel here is the 4th holy room in the town: - Cathedral 1432 - Royal Palace Chapel 1432 - Chapel in Village - Chapel in University Main Bldg Chapelry is named after a chapel, so there should be one in each, if there is more than a handful people living in it. There is a chapel in the Noble Palace also. |
|
|
|
What problem does this solve?
Infrastructure consolidation mainly. Also, reliance on single points of failure (such as state mandated interference with network traffic applied to network providers.) If these things don't bother you, you are probably in the majority. Some of us are not as comfortable with the potential problems we see here and it decreases the value of Bitcoin as a robust monetary alternative to today's collection of options. You may think that network interference using deep packet methods is some sort of a loony conspiracy theory that could never happen. I don't wish to bet my nest-egg on this especially since CALEA is a fixture in the U.S. Filtering is a relatively small step beyond that, and is fairly common in other countries. Much R&D is focused on how to do it. If Bitcoin is pro-active and if it remains compact and tight, it could probably overcome the potential roadblocks here and they would not be fatal. If it is bloated and consolidated to specialist operators it very probably could not. I don't think those solve infrastructure consolidation particularly well. Nor does it fix many single points of failure. Conversely, apriori doesn't multiple algos introduce additional single points of failure with each algorithm added? Multiple algos also doesn't prevent the ASIC issues. It is just either multiple ASICs or more complicated ones. It will start on FPGAs and iteratively optimize until it is worthy of an ASIC and then the future is back to the present. Location and identity detection is yet another issue entirely, and also it is as problematic as pure privacy. Adding either of these to a protocol trades sets of issues. Bitcoin is agnostic to both sides of this spectrum and relegates addressing them to outside the core protocol and codebase. It instead puts these in the hands of individual implementations. Both extremes have their places and valid use cases. |
|
|
|
|
I would propose a clock tower for the central monument of 2-C to the great benefit and beautification of the town. The specialist nee artisan who has worked on these has some very functional models that should keep wonderful time if built large enough. It can work!
The quarriers have worked hard and diligently for many years and still do in the burgeoning businesses there. Something is needed to melodically chime the hours to add a level of precision and joy to these labors. It would inform on the hours of services at the coming church, and importantly signal the beginnings and endings of happy hours at the nearby taverns.
A clock tower monument for for the center, it will show we mean business!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
