It's sad how you can start quoting things the founding fathers said or talk about the constitution and suddenly be labeled an extremist.
Hey, they were pretty extremist too. Just ask the British. |
|
|
|
I also don't think that there aren't any more good ideas to be had. Who's saying there are no more good ideas to be had? All we're saying is that this isn't one of them. If you really think it is, create a fork of the client and/or blockchain and see if people use it. You're not going to shoehorn this fix for a non existent problem into Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Give me any reason these socio-paths we've elected won't do this as they worsen everyone's economic situation?
Assassination markets. |
|
|
|
If the device does all of the wallet stuff itself, you can take it on the road.
I want this thing to be my wallet. Not a glorified dongle that allows me access to the wallet stored on my PC.
If I remember correctly, ArtForz is already working on a secure key storage and signing device. I'll see if I can find a chat log. Found it: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2011/05/05/20#l485685 |
|
|
|
No, the root of the problem that you are trying to find and cure would be divisibility.
It's amazing how many people insist I think divisibility is an issue. I don't. You still haven't addressed my point that as the value of a bitcoin increases, the incentive to protect it from loss (or theft, but that doesn't decrease the bitcoin in circulation) increases. This, I think, will lead to the slowing of loss over time. |
|
|
|
Very US-centric but a good read none the less. I'm not convinced that most economists around the world are affected by this, and I would find it hard to believe that you would have such a dominant player in every region that would push everyone to the Keynesian side. The Federal Reserve is not the only central bank, just one of the most influential (mostly because dollars are the world's reserve currency). |
|
|
|
I can't help but notice, bittertea you have taken apple polishing to a new level.
I have avatars turned off in my preferences, so at first I wasn't sure to what you were referring. It's actually a reference to the Golden Apple of Discord and/or Discordianism. Hail Eris. |
|
|
|
I never stated that a constant or near constant number of Bitcoins would be lost per year or per unit time. What I said was this:
M = total number of Bitcoins ever minted
C = total number of Bitcoins not lost
L = total number of Bitcoins truly lost
t = time
Per any unit of time you wish to use, L at t + 1 will be >= L at t.
Logically, then, L will get bigger over time. From that, it follows L will eventually approach M.
Let's assume that you agree that a certain percentage of unlost Bitcoins will be lost every year. Is that not an unreasonable assumption? No matter what number you choose, if you continue with the following calculation, the end result is the same:
C at t = M
C at t + 1 = (C at t) * x where x = some constant number less than 1.
Bzzzzt. You fail to factor in the value of a bitcoin. As the value increases, the rate at which they are lost will decrease, as people will take additional measures to secure them. If R L approaches 0, L will approach some value less than M. |
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have an idea!
You should collaborate on a new block chain using these rules. I seriously doubt you're going to convince enough people that this belongs in Bitcoin, but you can start a competing crypto currency with whatever changes you want. Bitcoin is open source, go build something!
|
|
|
|
You don't have to believe in a global conspiracy to understand how Keynesian economists are incentivized by state governments, nor why state governments would want to incentivize Keynesians.
Please spell it out for me. I'm curious why you think so few economists have found the one true way. Has perhaps "the market" chosen the best economic model there is, the Keynesian, and discarded the others? The market is always right, isn't it? Because Keynes supports state intervention in matters of money, and states like to intervene in matters of money? |
|
|
|
Yes it is always okay to get in early, so long as its legal. How can you know if it it should be legal or not unless you know if it's moral or immoral to do so!? |
|
|
|
Assume 1% lost coins per year. Probably, it was a lot higher initially, but we're talking from now on.
That means it'd take 229 (log(0.1)/log(0.99)) years before we lose one decimal of precision.
Assume? What about malicious attacks, viruses, natural disasters, power failure, & plain old stupidity. We just had an exchange get hacked, where 7% of all bitcoins in existence were being manipulated by a single attacker. As the adoption of Bitcoin increases, and the prices rises, the incentive to protect them against loss or theft will increase proportionally. This is something that I don't see people taking into account when they say that loss and theft will be a huge problem. |
|
|
|
The problem with Mt. Gox, and some of the other exchanges, is that they're not just an exchange. They're banks, too. They hold customer funds as deposits. What is commonly considered a bank today is more strictly defined as a commercial bank: "A commercial bank accepts deposits and pools those funds to provide credit, either directly by lending, or indirectly by investing through the capital markets." So, MtGox and the other exchanges are not banks in the same sense as Bank of America or even your local credit unions. |
|
|
|
Is it morally right to play the game if you get in early, even when you know it's designed to eventually fail? Doesn't it fall upon the person who claims that it is morally wrong to show that it is so? |
|
|
|
OTR is much better than PGP/GPG when using via IM, because you got two extra features: Deniability and forward secrecy. From http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/Deniability
The messages you send do not have digital signatures that are checkable by a third party. Anyone can forge messages after a conversation to make them look like they came from you. However, during a conversation, your correspondent is assured the messages he sees are authentic and unmodified.
Perfect forward secrecy
If you lose control of your private keys, no previous conversation is compromised.
I wasn't aware of those benefits, thank you. I've switched back to Pidgin which supports OTR. |
|
|
|
So, I've got a theory, and here are some interesting tidbits... - I created an account a few days before the hack and it appears in the export (57051,"bigshot").
- Around the same time around 6000 random looking accounts were created (from 52709,"hyquoshy" to 59354,"crostypa"). Was that part of a DDoS attempt, or some sort of known-text attack?
- Kevin says that he attempted to raise his withdrawal limit prior to the attack.
- MagicalTux says that Kevin logged in 3 minutes before the sell off and placed a large order at $0.01
|
|
|
|
1) A proof of work in the transaction to limit the rate at which hosts can create transactions (and with a work function that is scaled to be of a constant difficulty similarly to how the block hash work function is scaled automatically). Large, powerful hosts still would possibly be able to get around this but it would cost them (in electricity). Perhaps there could be a transaction hash target, similar to that of the block. In order to be relayed, the transaction's hash must be below the target. I'm not sure how you'd get this difficulty to automatically scale with increases in processing power. |
|
|
|
What's been going on lately is, a modified poclbm was circulated that contains a trojan. Apparently people fell for its claims of cpu efficiency or whatever.
Was there a thread on this? |
|
|
|
It is well known that Achilles' heel of bitcoin is the hash function: sooner or later it will be successful attacked and someone will got decisive advantage on mining because of (partially) feasible inverse mapping: hash -> block header. Really? I don't think so. Let's say an attack is found. It's only beneficial as long as it remains a secret. Once it is out in the wild, everyone uses it and the difficulty essentially just increases by whatever factor. |
|
|
|
|
You had me until "negative value". Well played.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
