|
I thought it would be interesting to create a site where... people can opt to get on a whitelist. Here is how it would work: When you opt to get on the whitelist you pay a credit card fee (something like 12 dollars) . You get put on some kind of transition phase where you are not whitelisted yet but transitioning. After 1 year you are whitelisted... and part of your initial payment is either refunded or given back as bitcoin amount. Any external merchant site can connect to the whitelist site and see if you are whitelisted. If you are then you are trusted somewhat. The trust level can be somehow ranked. You would start at a low level.
This would allow people to buy small amounts of bitcoins with credit cards if they needed them in the future fast or something.
|
|
|
|
Why don't we just let miners to decide the optimal block size?
If a miner is generating an 1-GB block and it is just too big for other miners, other miners may simply drop it. It will just stop anyone from generating 1-GB blocks because that will become orphans anyway. An equilibrium will be reached and the block space is still scarce.
I think this is exactly the right thing to do. There is still the question of what the default behavior should be. Here is a proposal: Ignore blocks that take your node longer than N seconds to verify. I'd propose that N be: 60 seconds if you are catching up with the blockchain. 5 seconds if you are all caught-up. But allow miners/merchants/users to easily change those defaults. Rationale: we should use time-to-verify as the metric, because everything revolves around the 10-minutes-per-block constant. Time-to-verify has the nice property of scaling as hardware gets more powerful. Miners will want to create blocks that take a reasonable amount of time to propagate through the network and verify, and will have to weigh "add more transactions to blocks" versus "if I add too many, my block will be ignored by more than half the network." Time-to-verify also has the nice property of incentivizing miners to broadcast transactions instead of 'hoarding' them, because transactions that are broadcast before they are in a block make the block faster to verify (because of the signature cache). That is good for lots of reasons (early detection of potential double-spends and spreading out the verification work over time so there isn't a blizzard of CPU work that needs to be done every time a block is found, for example). does this still involve a fork? |
|
|
|
|
I suppose there are currently 3 ways bitcoins can go to Iran.
1. Family in a different country wants to support their Iran relatives... so they might send them bitcoins
2. Someone in iran sees a market for bitcoins and gets them in somehow and starts selling them locally on localbitcoins
3. relatives who received bitcoins from family outside country trades them to someone else for something else
right?
|
|
|
|
Well since banks don't lend out depositor money but rather create new money through loans and fractional reserve banking... I didn't think along those lines. I suppose there could be a bank that offers loans with interest rates for bitcoins.
Of course they lend out depositor money, where do you think the "reserves" in fractional reserves comes from? From deposits. Reserves are deposits and whatever they lend out is money they create. The fractional reserve originally meant how much gold backs up the money. Now it means how many deposits (which are considered reserves) there are which determines how much new money (through loans) can be given. If all banks did was lend out other peoples money then there wouldn't be any "fractional reserve" since everything would be a reserve. And............. there wouldn't be any money since that is the mechanism which creates money and if it didn't exist we wouldn't have any. Of course what this means is that a bitcoin bank that did lend out couldn't lend out in excess of it's reserves. So that automatically limits it's profits as compared to a regular bank that simply creates money and charges interest on that money it creates. But it could still probably be profitable since the way regular banks do it I would consider to be evilly profitable. |
|
|
|
It's very possible in 5 years time there could even be a war within Bitcoin itself. The problem with the 1MB size limit for example and how to deal with it. As problems and solutions come up, I could see forks in Bitcoin as a possibility. Some people go with Bitcoin-y for a certain reason while others go with Bitcoin-x for other reasons.
If that's the case then the early, pre-fork Bitcoins would be more valuable as they could be used on all chains. An early adopter bonus, if you will.
If there is really a fork with unlimited transaction size, then most will follow it without questioning, people are ignorant, as long as their coins are valid  It's not a bug, it is a feature. P.S. Ignorance, is definitely a factor with Bitcoin, however. is there a possibility of bitcoin not forking though? Is the feature of the block size limit to make transactions more profitable to entice more miners once the bitcoins have been mined? |
|
|
|
Number one is the distributed blockchain, which is able to guarantee the maximum number of coins issued.
u win |
|
|
|
|
Well since banks don't lend out depositor money but rather create new money through loans and fractional reserve banking... I didn't think along those lines. I suppose there could be a bank that offers loans with interest rates for bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if in the future a bit bank is created what services could it have? A few examples I was thinking of that might be possible:
A bit bank might just be an easier place to store bitcoins for the average user so they didn't have to worry about losing the coins
A bit bank might be just an "additional signature" to someones wealth. You could store your own wealth how you wanted but you could require some signature from the bank. (not to get off subject but this would be especially useful for preventing bitcoins from being used to kidnap for ransom possibly. If you stored your wealth with a bank that had a policy of not signing wealth over in the event of a ransom then it might thwart that however unlikely scenario)
Would a bit bank also be able to provide "faster" transactions?
|
|
|
|
|
some people project the federal reserve and the US financial system to collapse. Here is my question though: From what i've read the Federal reserve is very similar to the Bank of England. And the bank of England has been around since 1600 something. Doesn't that basically mean our federal reserve system can have hundreds more years ?
Also I haven't done the calculations but... does anyone know if there is a mathematical certainty things can fail just judging by the public debt and the interest on it? If the interest and the public debt both keep growing isn't there a guaranteed collapse? Or not?
Is anyone buying bitcoins especially for this reason?
|
|
|
|
I have 3 of the lightning extremes in my computer at the moment and they work perfectly. I was going to sell 2 of them for bitcoins since I don't game much anymore. Each card has 3 GB of ram. this is the exact link http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127589 . I bought them for $594 originally. I'd be looking to get about 17.5 bitcoins per each one. Or 34 total for both (shipping included) edit: I'm sorry I didn't see the childboard "goods" |
|
|
|
|
I would disagree but only because it seems that the large fluctuations in price of bitcoin are not from millions upon millions of transactions from many people... but more larger transactions among less people. And I would bet that those who are dealing with such volumes and trades have a knowledge of mining even if they don't mine themselves. Saying that the increased difficulty in mining doesn't have an effect on the price because the supply is only a few percent of the market... is almost like saying that if mining were stopped tomorrow and all the coins that were created were...... and no more... then the price wouldn't more than double simply because only about half of the coins which can be generated already are so doubling would make it about the right price from a sheer supply standpoint. I bet that would be wrong. And I apologize for the run-on sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
By factor I could mean a group of people using it ... or even just technical detail about how bitcoin itself works.
I think the irreversibility of payment gives it a defining factor that pretty much no other medium of payment has. So that will allow it a permanent place in every market across the world... however large or small that place will be.
|
|
|
|
|
The title pretty much says it all... how will asics hurt or help bitcoin itself? What benefits do they provide if any? what cons?
I suppose one con I can think of without knowing much is that it might be harder for your average person to just get hold of bitcoins if they can't mine them. Not being able to mine them is simply one less way of acquiring them so that is a provable con.
|
|
|
|
|
if I ran a single for say..... 1 year. And it arrived whenever they will arrive .. how many bitcoins in total do you think it will generate? if you had to guess. Let's say the shipping date is the first week of march.
|
|
|
|
We're not tinfoil hat wearers, we are just skeptical of those who are known liars and have the most to gain from lying.
I like |
|
|
|
|
Go!
I'm going to say 99 dollars per BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
what exactly is the block chain size problem? the block chain is basically the public ledger that records transactions right?
|
|
|
|
|
Consider that since bitcoin is a worldwide currency in all countries... a niche market could still mean tens of millions of people. What do you think?
and if it was in such a situation how much do you think it could still be worth?
|
|
|
|
I would suggest this podcast from Goldmoney ROBERT BLUMEN DEBUNKS GOLD SUPPLY & DEMAND MISCONCEPTIONS http://www.goldmoney.com/podcast/robert-blumen-debunks-gold-supply-demand-misconceptions.htmlThe concept of Demand to Hold is important to understand the dynamics of the price of gold and bitcoin. If the Demand to Hold change (people start thinking bitcoin value is 25$ instead of 15$ and are unwilling to sell for less than 25$), the price will follow whatever be the supply and the request. Mining is a part so small over the total of the supply available (of gold and bitcoin) that if someone want buy must exchange something with someone that bough them, not from someone that produced them. If gold mined in a year is 2% of the total gold supply available, the price will be determined by the Demand to Hold of the people holding gold and the Demand of people wanting exchange other stuff for gold, not from the quantity sold by the miners. I think this is saying two conflicting things. One the one hand it is saying the price of bitcoins is a result of what people think they are worth. On the other hand it is saying that since the supply from mining is a certain percent it can't affect the price significantly. But what if the increase difficulty in mining causes a change in what people think a bitcoin is mentally worth since it's now twice as "hard" to mine? mathematically it shouldn't affect the price much but much of the price is mental. If everyone that had bitcoins suddenly felt they were worth a thousand dollars each and wouldn't sell for less........ that is how much they would be. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
