You'd think journalists would at least try to disguise their contempt for their readers. The contempt serves an important purpose by driving away those readers who have even the slightest self respect or ability to think for themselves. Remember that in modern journalism the readers are the product that is sold to the advertisers. By weeding out the outliers from their readership, CNBC increases the value of what they are selling. |
|
|
|
If you like reading the theory, please see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152334.0If you think it isn't going to work / there are important vulnerabilities, please describe it in detail in that thread. Your contribution will be appreciated! I'm working hard on a proof-of-concept; as soon as it's finished I'll invite some critics of the concept to try to steal from me. If even that doesn't convince you, please feel free to stay inside the blockchain, while the rest of the world goes forward. Before I look at the specific proposal, I want to lay out the general possibilities I see with regards to all off-chain services. Let me know if I've missed any. 1: It relies on trusted authorities for its security - Centralized systems are always less secure than Bitcoin because they are susceptible to dishonest operators, disgruntled employees, compromised servers, government-mandated backdoors, and other attacks which Bitcoin's design prevents.2a: It relies on distributed consensus using a proof of work system - Less secure than the main chain because no individual off-chain system will have as much processing power devoted to it as the main chain. Some attackers who could not successfuly double spend on the main chain will be able to attack the off-chain system. 2b: It relies on distributed consensus using something besides proof of work which is inferior in practice - It's less secure than the main chain. 2c: It relies on distributed consensus using something besides proof of work which is superior in practice - We should switch to a cryptocurrency that uses this other method for its main chain instead of proof of work. In none of the above cases does it make sense to use an off-chain transaction system, but if I've left something out please let me know. |
|
|
|
My GF bitched me out last night because she said I wouldn't stop talking about Bitcoin and I wasn't paying enough attention to her and all I did was watch stupid boring charts. Dump her. Bitcoin is irrelevant here - it won't matter what your interests or hobbies are, she'll react the same way. Find somebody who will share your interests, or at least will allow you to have other interests besides her. |
|
|
|
Billion dollar market cap is a pretty big milestone (that's between $91 and $92 currently)
Parity with ounce of silver, gram of gold, etc. are other milestones
Sure, but this list is about the R10 series. |
|
|
|
What are those "odd" milestones, anyway? Math |
|
|
|
|
$0.10 2010-10-13
$0.13 2010-10-25
$0.16 2010-10-26
$0.20 2010-12-11
$0.25 2010-12-20
$0.32 2011-01-20
$0.40 2011-01-21
$0.50 2011-01-31
$0.63 2011-02-01
$0.79 2011-04-12
$1.00 2011-04-16
$1.26 2011-04-22
$1.58 2011-04-26
$2.00 2011-04-28
$2.51 2011-11-29
$3.16 2011-12-15
$3.98 2011-12-25
$5.01 2012-05-16
$6.31 2012-06-19
$7.94 2012-07-16
$10.00 2012-09-02
$12.59 2012-12-04
$15.85 2013-01-21
$19.95 2013-02-03
$25.12 2013-02-13
$31.62 2013-02-28
$39.81 2013-03-06
$50.12 2013-03-19
$63.10 2013-03-24
$79.43 2013-07-10
$100.00 2013-07-29
$125.89 2013-10-03
$158.49 2013-10-18
$199.53 2013-10-27
$251.19 2013-11-06
$316.23 2013-11-08
$398.11 2013-11-13
$501.19 2013-11-18
$630.96 2013-12-19
$794.33 2013-12-30
$1,000.00
$1,258.93
$1,584.89
$1,995.26
$2,511.89
$3,162.28
$3,981.07
$5,011.87
$6,309.57
$7,943.28
$10,000.00
$12,589.25
$15,848.93
$19,952.62
$25,118.86
$31,622.78
$39,810.72
$50,118.72
$63,095.73
$79,432.82
$100,000.00
$125,892.54
$158,489.32
$199,526.23
$251,188.64
$316,227.77
$398,107.17
$501,187.23
$630,957.34
$794,328.23
$1,000,000.00
|
|
|
|
The rally is actually incredibly muted, for the reason that there exists an unbelievable flock of sheep-bears, who don't know math, and are willing to sell after every tick up. The various payment processors have to sell bitcoins in increasing volumes as they sign up more merchants who want local currency. |
|
|
|
Someone call a medic! Bitcoinity is about to a'splode
Bitcoinity is now powering the Markets page on blockchain.info in addition to its own site. |
|
|
|
Yes, people do use and invest in Bitcoin because of the brand name and the brand mystique that was built around it. Just look at their reactions to any alternate cryptocurrency that is nearly identical from the technical point of view. What you call "brand name and the brand mystique" I would call "first mover advantage, network effect, and human capital". |
|
|
|
That happened to that crash we were promised? I was hoping to wake up to see cheap coins just in time to buy them. |
|
|
|
Appears to be having trouble clearing the tower at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
While you're at it, make sure they continue to flag "BitCoin" as a misspelling.
|
|
|
|
An interesting idea occurred to me... what if you could embed a hash of the protocol spec itself along in each block to be accepted by the network? This would mean that the definitions themselves could be set in stone. Blocks have version numbers. |
|
|
|
You don't think PayPal's accounts, for example, can be as secure? Off-chain systems means more security options, something not possible with the decentralized nature of Bitcoin.
PayPal has zero security - they can steal from their users at any time. This is a common feature of all centralized systems, which is exactly why I said that off-chain transactions only benefit thieves and control freaks. |
|
|
|
You underestimate what is possible with off-blockchain transactions. Basically, the way to make them secure is to always keep the possibility to move them into the block chain, to enforce good behavior. I am extremely skeptical that an off blockchain system will be able to secure itself against the kind of computing power that miners on the main chain are accumulating. Ripple claims to be able to do this but it remains to be proved. Any alternate transaction system which require fewer resources to break the network as compared to the main chain is less secure by definition. As the hashing power of the Bitcoin network grows, so also will the resources available to potential attackers. |
|
|
|
In fact, even before I knew the details surrounding the block size I knew network transactions couldn't scale to global capacity. Still, I had high confidence in Bitcoin knowing off-chain transactions could play a major role. How do you know this? I'm open to this possibility but I'm not going to accept it as a mere assertion. Show your work if you want me to believe you. I think it's key any plans for Bitcoin development take into consideration off-chain transactions, which don't defeat the purpose of Bitcoin any more than Casascius coins would (which obviously omit using the chain), because the core network remains an option. As of right now, with no future changes to the protocol, this is false. The core network will not remain an option because once the blocks reach 1 MB no one else will be permitted to use the core network no matter how much they are willing to pay. If alternate chains are such a benefit then there is no problem removing the artificial transaction cap on the main chain. Miners won't process more transactions than it is profitable to mine on the main chain, and since the off-chain methods are beneficial in their own right then people will naturally start using them. They are beneficial to the users based on their own merits, right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
