Bitcoin will have no problem scaling. Sure, the supernodes may end up being run by VISA, WesternUnion, AliPay, etc., but they won't have governmental monopoly and will compete on an even playing field without TBTF bailouts. The Paracoin idea seems similar to the idea of creating a new crypto that allows legacy transfers from Bitcoin at a 1:1 ratio. The legacy coins would always be supported by the backbone supernodes and exchanges, but would dwindle at the consumer level as the new crypto takes hold. There has been discussion about that contingency, but no real urgency to pursue it. Again, Bitcoin will have no problem scaling to VISA levels.
Paracoin would view Bitcoin mostly as a natural resource existing in the environment which might be exploited. The fattest and juiciest one at this point. This is kind of like a tic on the back of a wild cow. If the cow gets domesticated and subsidized by a farmer (like Bitcoin to corp/gov) the tic does not care...the cow's blood is that much richer for it. Nor does the cow particularly notice or care much about the tic either since he is so tiny. Of course the farmer could fear bubonic plague and fumigate at great cost and risk. The tic can pack up and leave in that case. The goal of 'paracoin' in my conception is just to explore a different block-chain path. By happenstance it would layer on all kinds of niceties which any Bitcoin users who wish to are welcome to use (anonymity being one.) If the cow died or the farmer injected her with so many hormones that the user's didn't like the taste of her milk, Paracoin could split and probably take a reasonable amount of hashing power with it. Of course at that time hashing power will likely be highly monopolized by corporations. I would be always looking for ways to either use hashing power asymmetrically, or use a different 'proof of work' altogether. That part of the system would be designed to be 'plug-able' as much as possible. As long as Paracoin is 'riding on the back of' Bitcoin, the whole world of economic balances and incentives is out of whack. This is regrettable, but if one is interested in that for the academic aspects of that, there are plenty of places to study it. The real-world impacts of various decisions regarding management of the solution would have to be dealt with using intuition and considered low precision...just as is/was the case with Bitcoin. I feel the need to use insecticide after reading that. There's really nothing stopping anyone that wants to write one of those. In fact, you could make a para-paracoin that leeches off of paracoin. Aw Dawg, I hear you like parasites. |
|
|
|
|
Lately it's been sell high, buy low, sell lower, buy lower, sell lower, buy lower.
|
|
|
|
|
Consensus on the purchase value of Bitcoin is not reported anywhere. Only a few exchanges report any transaction values in terms of local currency. There needs to be a way to report the local currency value used in transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
This post was moved to the economics section. I don't think the solution is one of economics any more than Bitcoin is a tool of economics. I also no longer believe that we need an alt-crypto. I'm just saying that we need "speed limit signs" of a sort that predicts the safe trading zone for Bitcoin trading within degrees of freedom in much the same way the difficulty factor is calculated. I mean, why didn't Satoshi just leave the difficulty factor of 1 until all 21 million bitcoins are released? If it's all about letting the free market decide, then why not? It's too bad he didn't talk about the trading side of Bitcoin. I think this would have been addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a good idea to create a Bitcoin vending machine that dispenses Bitcoins for cash. I think it's a bad idea to create a currency exchange device that converts Bitcoin to local currencies. The former would encourage people to acquire Bitcoins to spend. The latter may be seen as a way to launder money from overseas.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at this guys blogs tells me he likes to necro stories.
|
|
|
|
|
In about twelve hours we'll know more.
|
|
|
|
The path to one world currency
The path to many competing global currencies oligarchs.
|
|
|
|
Glenn Campbell has chosen to live homeless. For a golden couple of years he qualified for free standby flights so he was almost always flying somewhere.
Not the country singer. That would have been cool. |
|
|
|
|
Governments did not invite the central banks either. They just took power. If governments come after Bitcoin it will be at the request of the banks. There is nothing stopping governments from issuing monies backed by Bitcoin instead of the banks.
|
|
|
|
|
With every new alt coin that comes out, it makes people realize how valuable the original Bitcoin is.
|
|
|
|
While the protocol cannot be changed, the encryption can be. The encryption is part of the protocol. What you probably mean to say is that the hashing algorithm used by the protocol could be changed by core developer/mining consensus for a good reason, whereas changing the economic properties is far less likely to reach a consensus. Yeah. The block rewards, the ten minute verify etc. will not likely be changed, but the hashing would probably be allowed. Maybe in a hundred years or so. |
|
|
|
|
You can always run bitcoi-qt from a shell with the -rescan option to make any coins that did not send show up.
|
|
|
|
|
While the protocol cannot be changed, the encryption can be. Any hard fork will recognise old coins as long as they include the old transactions in the blockchain. If they are moved, they must use the new fork. How the new hashes are generated has nothing to do with how the old ones were made.
|
|
|
|
|
The short answer is that a QC cannot crack Bitcoin. One may be able to after Centuries, crack one address. Of course, that presumes that the coins don't move before then. If we ever have a computer that powerful, then cracking Bitcoin will be a very low priority task for such a device.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the benefit to regulation? Do gold and silver buyers have regulation? In my opinion, Bitcoin green addresses, whitelisting, colored coins, government provided deterministic wallets, and other schemes can offer full traceability. All there need to be is an incentive to use them.
|
|
|
|
np,yw  |
|
|
|
Sure, the supernodes may end up being run by VISA, WesternUnion, AliPay, etc., but they won't have governmental monopoly and will compete on an even playing field without TBTF bailouts.
Absolutely. Bitcoin will exist regardless, and I suspect governments have no interest in stopping Bitcoin entirely. What they do want is a regulated Bitcoin under their ultimate control. You saw how quickly VISA blocked payments to WikiLeaks. If mining can only be done by non-anonymous pools in datacenters, Bitcoin can be regulated and coins can be blacklisted. Sure, some governments may block non-anonymous pools, but some governments won't. Choose which one's you will use and let the market decide which stay in business. |
|
|
|
|
Your grandchildren will complain about you being an early adopter for getting in on the <$10000 BTC and the >1 BTC/block mining.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
