|
What is the minimum amount you will sell? Is there a fixed fee, %fee, or are you just going to run a spread?
If a person gets verified on the first purchase, is it much simpler for future purchases with the same card?
Not asking for myself, might refer some noobs. I've been reluctant to spread the word to friends when the best way to get coins would be for people to buy from me.
|
|
|
|
|
The site looked really clean and professional in kind of a casual way. Xtranormal video ruins that imo. Hide it somewhere, words are quicker for an introduction and less distracting anyway.
|
|
|
|
highly unlikely for 1 generator, but i could imagine a scenario where only 20 people are responsible for 95% of the difficulty. that seems like a shaky foundation.
Well, I wouldn't mind. Those people would just have a fair reward for their contribution to bitcoin security. It would be fine with me. That would also mean that 20 people own 95% of all bitcoins... Unless they used them... which would be most of the point of having them. |
|
|
|
When the snake comes to bite it is okay to kill it if you can.
Right, but my point is that if you kill the snake yourself (aka start a violent revolution), then what prevent you from becoming the new snake? What prevents another snake from emerging? On the other hand, if you can defend against it, then nobody can take on that role. So defence is the only lasting solution to the problem of excessive offense. I'm not saying that the right tool at this moment is a machete and not boots, definitely get the boots now. But killing snakes doesn't automatically make you a snake either. |
|
|
|
This has absolutely no reason to be integrated into bitcoin. Just make it as a separate software if you really want something like that.
K.I.S.S.
He says that, and that would be better. There is no reason it couldn't be an option in a client at some point when there are tons of clients though. Obviously bitcoin itself shouldn't be altered or anything. But really, there is no way that saving people 3 clicks a few times a month is one of the most important hold ups, it's just one more possible nice feature. |
|
|
|
Subscriptions are quite difficult for bitcoin, because bitcoin lacks a sort of "demand payment" feature. Demand payments occur when you give a merchant a "secret" (ie. your CC number / expire date), that enables direct withdrawal from your account.
Community-wise, I'd bet most bitcoin users would shy away from a system that enables third parties to withdraw bitcoins from you at their convenience.
The closest you can probably come is adding a "cron" feature to mtgox or bitcoin, which sends payments on a pre-defined schedule, to pre-defined bitcoin addresses. Such a feature leaves the user in control of their wallet, as they can cancel a "cron job" at any time.
He's talking about someone like mtgox implementing it, super easy. |
|
|
|
In the future we will have generators that will _not generate_ until there is a certain amount of high fee blocks waiting, and then they will automaticity turn on their massive generation capacity and quickly generate the block. This leaves the average difficulty relatively low, and makes a strong incentive to include larger fees. These generators plainly won’t include any low fee blocks, low fee blocks will have to wait around for a charity block.
How will the fees build up if the smaller generators are constantly processing them. there isn't going to be a sudden influx of high fee transactions... The large generators will simply be leaving all the profit to competitors. And if the competitors are snapping up any transaction no matter how small the fee, there is little incentive to pay a high fee in the first place. There is a lot of guessing going in this thread, for we seem to have all fallen victim to the idea that we can guess the nature of a market that doesn't yet exist. As it is now, there is no incentive to pay a transaction fee at all, as the fee structure that currently exists is intended to limit spamming without prohibiting legitimately non-conforming transactions; not offer a profit motive to generators decades away. The fee structure can be altered without much difficulty on a technical level, but the future political issues are as difficult to predict as the market is. Yet many seem to get blinded by the profit motive as the only motive for generation, which can easily be shown to not be the case presently, and I have seen no compelling reason as to why it must become the only reason in the future. This is a good point. While I wouldn't be real excited if, for example, transaction fees didn't even exist and the plan was that people would donate cycles since they wanted it to work, I can't even be sure that would fail. As the system is, I think the incentive scheme is good, but can't tell quite what the ultimate drivers of difficulty will be and to what extent, but one way or another I think it will be huge. People buy lottery tickets that are -EV all the time, millions of them daily. Well, when 100 million people are using bitcoin a 12.5+fees win might be pretty huge. People might buy that ticket way way more often than would be rational. |
|
|
|
I wonder if a system like this would work. What if you could send a bitcoin before you intended to purchase ? A merchant may broadcast an address or something and you could deposit there while walking past then come back later and just take the coffee thats waiting for you without needing to hand over cash at all. This may not work for instant gratification and impulse buying (this might actually be a good thing lol) but if you could just have a bitcoin credit wallet sitting at your favourite coffee shop buying stuff would be instantaneous wouldnt it? Maybe I just like to plan purchases ahead too much.  Well, it might be annoying to have to walk past, but if you go to Starbucks or Podunckville Coffee Express regularly there's no reason you can't pay before you go out, or even on your way from your phone. Request addy to pay, pay it, get a "code, broadcast code from your phone automatically when you walk in, pick up mocha. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe to some people, but recurring payments have a huge negative association to me (stupid gyms, hassles when changing/closing accounts, etc).
I realize those particular issues won't exist, but I greatly prefer a service to lapse if I forget about it than to keep paying if I forget about it, though I can imagine exceptions, like web hosting or something.
I'm sure it'll happen soon anyway, it's super simple to implement once everything else is in place like at mtgox.
|
|
|
|
Wait, so what stops an attacker from generating a block with one million or more spam transactions?
Nothing, but it stops attackers from drowning legitimate transactions in junk inside the normal blocks. Are gargantuan phony entire blocks really a problem? They will be expensive to produce and won't be long lived as they are extremely hard not to spot and no generators in their right mind would continue building the chain from one of them. They would lose the income from any subsequent blocks when everyone else ditches the offending block. So that should take care of itself through generator self interest. Hmm, okay outrageous blocks containing only junk would be easy to spot. But what of badly sized say 100k when average is 10k that contain mostly junk, but also the legit transactions that had been received. Maybe now some will reject and some will not? If there is no uniform rule it will be splits all over the place. And even normal users will be affected. If their transaction is in a very oversize block do they just hope it will stay? Or hope it will not be accepted and send again? I think there must be a max block size to avoid this. Also the "public good of difficulty" comment made me realize that block size may need to be "artificially" limited in some way. But I think updating it along with difficulty to be slightly more than the average size of the previous 2016 blocks, but never decreasing, is a resonable way to do it. |
|
|
|
A "paid" account would be a download buffet. 5 BTC would provide like 250 downloads.(as well, upload)
Agreed, that is another benefit. You don't have to go to the client 250 times and send to 250 different addresses. |
|
|
|
|
I think the benefits of not requiring an account are obvious.
But the benefits of optional accounts should not be overlooked. From the upload side it allows reputations to build. I don't want to buy a fake Kiba after all. There may be other ways to solve this, but an account is one easy way.
And from the download side it would be nice to have credit on account as a convenience. Then you wouldn't have to worry about confirm time at all. If prices rise for some content you will not want to take 0 confirms, if my understanding is correct this is a risk not only because of double spends, but also issues like those non confirming coins, etc.
|
|
|
|
Maybe I am confused, imagine a max block size of about 10 transactions and this schedule of people's willingness to pay.
Ah, sorry if this was not clear: There is no maximum block size that is adjusted. The size of a block is determined by the size of the most profitable rule-abiding set of transactions that can go into it. Completely independent of previous block sizes. Wait, so what stops an attacker from generating a block with one million or more spam transactions? |
|
|
|
|
When the snake comes to bite it is okay to kill it if you can.
|
|
|
|
But fees could get very large and very even, no?
No, if all fees are large and even there is plenty of room for cheap transactions at the bottom. I think we need to know what the purpose of limiting the block size is.
The most important and most difficult purpose is to keep the transaction fees both reasonable and high enough to give an incentive to generators to provide the unrelated public good of hashing difficulty. Maybe I am confused, imagine a max block size of about 10 transactions and this schedule of people's willingness to pay. .42BTC, .41BTC, .41BTC, .41BTC, .41BTC, .4BTC, .4BTC, .4BTC, .39BTC, .39BTC, .37BTC, .36BTC, .36BTC, .34BTC, .33BTC, .33BTC, .33BTC, .33BTC, .32BTC, .31BTC, .3BTC, .3BTC... and so on for maybe hundreds or thousands, but only the top 10 very similar payments will actually be in blocks and available for determining weather to increase max block size and so it will not be increased. Maybe my list is not a realistic structure, but I can't see why it would always have to be very different fees in the top and bottom, especially once block size becomes a limiting factor. But it does occur to me than in the "very slowly decreasing desire to pay fees" scenario generators may actually want to increase the block size. It will lower average fees, but probably not total fees. I guess this has to do with the elasticity of demand for sending a transfer. |
|
|
|
The spread is between the highest user bid and lowest user ask. I understand that, but we were referring to Bitcoin Exchange. As I understand it, Bitcoin Exchange isn't a market, and the owner sets his own spread. So his spread is analogous to a fee. Oh, haha, it was me who was confused. I was thinking it was btcex we were talking about, whoops. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the perfect agorist currency.
I lean the same way, though this is far from proven. Some limitations I can think of: - A substantial majority of humans lack computers and/or internet access.
- Bitcoin might be out-competed by something else in the works (Truledger, Loom)
- Bitcoin might be out-competed by something not yet invented
- The entire model might be flawed
- Space aliens could destroy the intertube
- etc...
Why won't Bitcon be cloned be anyone else? New genesis block, ... voila, another competing currency,right? So you discover bitcoin and the new competitor, one has merchants and exchanges and developers and a community, and the other is the same thing, but without those good things. Which do you choose? Certainly something could displace bitcoin, but it will have to be better in some way, not the same thing two years younger. |
|
|
|
How about having the transaction fees decide the block size? Perhaps by a rule like this: The total fees of the least expensive half of the transactions in a block must be bigger than half the total fees of the most expensive half. (All transactions get to add their fair share of the newly minted coins to their fee.)
Such a scheme has several benefits.
* Prohibits flooding
* Allows unlimited numbers of transactions if there is real demand
* Makes transaction fees depend on the demand for transactions
* No constants
* No guesses about the future market
But fees could get very large and very even, no? I think we need to know what the purpose of limiting the block size is. If it is to stop spam only, then it should be set to grow with consistent use near the max, spam cannot push this up because at least a few generators will not include spam, especially given that their future pricing power (weak as it may be anyway) will be further reduced by allowing the block size to increase. On the other hand without collusion generators will not refuse legitimate transactions with fees. If it is to keep the size of the chain down by then we need to somehow weigh that against the goodness of cheap transactions. I don't know how this can be settled at all. Everyone bears the tiny cost of remembering the transaction for potentially a long time, but only one generator gets the payment for putting it in there. |
|
|
|
If you want Bitcoin to have lots of flourishing exchanges, you have to let the exchanges make money.
People who complain about "excessive" profit margin at an exchange should open a competing exchange.
That isn't what is being discussed here. The spread is between the highest user bid and lowest user ask. It will come down as more people use the market. I don't know what the fee is, but I'm sure it is much smaller than 14%. |
|
|
|
Nice. Had the graphic ready to go, eh?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
