|
Your friend can go all in and still diversify by not sticking to a strictly buy-and-hold strategy.
If he uses some fraction of the bitcoins he buys to invest in Bitcoin startups, or donates to development to make the network more secure and scalable, that spending would serve to help protect the value of his savings.
|
|
|
|
You don't need to run an exit node to operate a hidden service. In fact you don't even need to be a relay. https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.enSince the anonymity of the people connecting is the issue, not concealing the fact that you're operating the hidden service, you could set up a Tor in client mode to reduce the amount of bandwidth consumed. |
|
|
|
you are wrong. there is no minimum amount of energy needed to perform a calculation. You might want to consider refraining from throwing around words that you don't understand. What you've done there is called "confirmation bias". You decided something is true, so then you searched the Internet looking for something that supported your preconceived notions. That's not a valid approach to epistemology. In any case, what did you find? So their idea is to perform the inverse computation on the output states and if this reproduces the original states, then the computation is error free. And because this relies on reversible logic steps, it naturally minimizes the amount of garbage states that are produced in between.
There are one or two caveats, of course. The first is that nobody has succeeded in building a properly reversible logic gate so this work is entirely theoretical. Their findings can be summarized as follows: "If some process which is impossible exists, then other processes which are also impossible could be performed." That's not exactly revolutionary. I can write a paper proving that if we discover magic, then I would the most powerful wizard in the universe. Unless somebody proves the existence of magic though it would just be a wish fulfillment fantasy. |
|
|
|
|
If you're worried about short sellers then just make sure to always take actual possession of your bitcoins. All of the dirty tricks that Wall Street firms play with the exchanges are possible because they can get away with selling things they don't actually have, and can plunder customer accounts without anyone realizing it.
Send your national currency to Mt Gox, trade it for bitcoins, and withdraw those bitcoins to an address you control. If everybody does that it it would make shorting risky and naked shorting impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what the numbers are, but the way I would calculate it would be to ratio the size of an unspent output to the price of RAM, integrated out to a suitable time in the future to get the net present value.
|
|
|
|
|
When will you start selling ASICs?
|
|
|
|
That is called ignorance, and is the reason for a lot of problems. It is not a solution.  Free association is the only solution. |
|
|
|
If they don't do it already, miners need to start operating more like businesses. They need to crunch the number and understand the relationship between various transaction parameters and their cost. They need to do that for their own sake as they will need to host these transactions pretty much forever. They also need tools to tweak pricing quickly and dynamically as market forces change.
Under such assumptions, the current transaction dust we are experiencing should be reduced. My prediction is that if miners acted more as rational market players, they would require much higher fees for very small and young transactions. If the transaction is so small that it makes no economical sense to spend it, it should be priced accordingly. It will most likely be impossible to prune it and will require storage in UTXO memory. Some miners might also decide to drop them entirely. This is entirely up to them.
So how does the landscape look today? Are miners sufficiently empowered to dynamically change their pricing policies?
More of them would do this if it wasn't for the distorting effect of the block subsidy. Miners won't have a large incentive to optimize their transaction fee policies until fees are a significant portion of their revenue, which won't happen until the transaction rate starts to approach PayPal's. |
|
|
|
This topic has derailed into politics trolling.
Life gets a lot better when you start using the "Ignore" feature. |
|
|
|
|
If you publish this donation address somewhere on your web site we could use the blockchain.info tag feature to mark it.
|
|
|
|
|
The goal of UBC is to remove the requirement to choose between running a light node and acting as a first class network citizen.
The minimum amount of data needed to verify blocks and transactions is the UTXO set. The thread linked in the OP is a discussion about the best data structure for storing the UTXO set, with the goal of eventually including it into the block definition. If this is accomplished nodes could discard all prunable data, except for enough recent history to handle reorgs, but could still perform the network functions a reference node can perform now (except a full blockchain download).
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, this is partly why there is so much commotion regarding block size. Some people think (including me) that if block capacity is expanded without regard for 'scarcity', the miners won't be able to sell it. Imagine this: if there is "excess" capacity and miners can't reduce it, all it takes is one rogue miner giving away 1000s of free transactions for the whole system to fall apart. You've hit on the crux of the matter. If Bitcoin is allowed to grow it's almost certain the business model for mining will change. Some people think (including me) think we should strive to make Bitcoin as successful as possible, up to and including replacing state-issued money. If we start to get close to that level of success there will be a lot more stakeholders involved with Bitcoin and mining. McDonalds and Walmart will have an interest in mining as a form of transaction processing, but their business perspective will be broader than just maximizing fee revenue. For their purposes it might make sense for them to mine (or hire another company to mine) and include all transactions regardless of fee. If enough players like that get involved it's unlikely the current business model for mining will survive unchanged. It's understandable, if equally short sighted, that the established players don't like this possibility. Record companies didn't want to change their business model when the market changed either when the market evolved. Some people might not be involved in mining, but they fear letting Bitcoin get large enough that new stakeholders appear who might not agree with them, or who might want to destroy Bitcoin. For those people keeping the blocksize deliberately restricted is an attempt to maintain control over the project to ensure its survival. |
|
|
|
|
Bad poll. I can't vote for "all of the above".
|
|
|
|
I thought Luke-Jr being a religious authoritarian statist zealot was old news? +1 |
|
|
|
After this discussion I don't trust you. I do not like where you would take this currency if you had the chance. I think you are an enemy.
If some day, by some "unfortunate accident" you become main developer, i will vote for creating a fork without you. You could probably save yourself some stress by just clicking "Ignore". |
|
|
|
|
It's not a problem is you use a client that has deterministic wallets.
|
|
|
|
|
Those services will all have to go through Coinlab.
|
|
|
|
|
The only information that miners absolutely must keep on hand is the set of unspent outputs (UTXO set) because it's possible to allow them to discard all the rest of the historical transaction data using optimizations that have been discussed but not yet implemented. The UTXO set is what some people refer to as unprunable data.
Right now that set is a few hundred megabytes, but if we imagine a billion Bitcoin users all playing Satoshi Dice it would get very large unless there is an incentive for users to limit the number of outputs in their wallet. Especially when the transaction rate is very high miners are probably going to want to keep the UTXO in RAM to speed up verification, which means as the set gets larger their capital equipment costs go up.
So if they effectively subsidize transactions which reduce the UTXO set by requiring a lower fee in the number of outputs is less than the number of inputs they lose a bit in fee revenue but gain in terms of lower hardware requirements.
Once miners start doing this, client developers will have an incentive to include dust collection into their coin selection algorithms and the dust will be cleaned up automatically.
|
|
|
|
I quoted gmaxwell's explanation for why miners are not really incentivized to clean up dust And you refrained from quoting the explanation of why they are incentivized. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
