I prefer to be paid in Western Unions, thank you very much.
so you prefer to lose money on stupid expensive fees? for what for a better security? because you feel more regulated and not evading something some people feel simply dirty using bitcoin, it could be another reason why they avoid it Sorry, I think you missed my point. There is no such thing as a "western union" unit of account, which I said I preferred to be paid in. As in, "please send me 100 western unions". Bitcoin is a unit of account. Western union is a company providing communication/financial services. Do we also compare Bitcoin to Comcast? Which is better? The point of the OP is about transaction fees. So it is much more better to use bitcoin rather than wester union. Unless the receiver does not know about bitcoin and if can't use it. You still don't get it. Dollars also have zero transaction fees. Painting bitcoin as a competitor to western union is misdirection at best. Public coin allows you to hold a verifiable fraction of the world's supply in your hand. Fiat coin does not allow you to hold a verifiable fraction of the world's supply in your hand. Get it? Soon you will be using western union to send bitcoin, then perhaps you will understand. |
|
|
|
I prefer to be paid in Western Unions, thank you very much.
so you prefer to lose money on stupid expensive fees? for what for a better security? because you feel more regulated and not evading something some people feel simply dirty using bitcoin, it could be another reason why they avoid it Sorry, I think you missed my point. There is no such thing as a "western union" unit of account, which I said I preferred to be paid in. As in, "please send me 100 western unions". Bitcoin is a unit of account. Western union is a company providing communication/financial services. Do we also compare Bitcoin to Comcast? Which is better? |
|
|
|
Such a system would not have regular block intervals, for sure, and indeed it would be a requirement that a sent transaction not become orphaned, otherwise you would have to manually resend transactions if you weren't quick enough.
You might design it to have no fees, because the spam protection is built in, but there are also blockchain storage costs to consider.
I was thinking that because you always mine your own TX, any fees you include: go back to you 
Difficulty wise, what if you can set your own difficulty for the transactions you mine (with proportional block reward)?
Hmm that's another interesting idea I guess in the end there will be a network-wide difficulty-per-satoshi-reward, so it might not change all that much. A trusted pool, as you put it, would own your private keys and would essentially be an online wallet with none of the security of even blockchain.info.
I was thinking more like 20 friends get together and agree that if any one of them finds a block they share the proceeds proportionally to everyone's hash rate. Not that they would use this kind of thing to store any personal funds. To check the hash rate they all show regularly "shares" which prove they are mining to some coinbase or another. If anyone mines a block and grabs the funds for themselves without saying anything, the others will be able to see that cheating occured. They won't be able to get the money back for distributing to their pool of course but they can at least see what happened. Cheers and thanks -- funkenstein_the_dwarf |
|
|
|
This is an interesting idea; certainly gets rid of mempool issues too doesn't it  and TX relaying incentivization. And TX fees, well sorta. However, totally impractical for a normal-use coin. Might be interesting to see what happened though are you planning to start one to see? What do you think about just making it so that the miner of a block must have the coinbase private key? Doesn't that get rid of pools? Yes, that would enforce the condition that only you can mine your own blocks. I don't think it's totally impractical, necessarily. What makes you say that? A couple of reasons . One is that if there were ever more than a TX per 20 seconds or so, then this becomes too fast.. block times of one per 20 seconds have issues from what I hear. And what if the number of TX increases? There are no fees if you always mine your own TX. Perhaps a balance would be reached as people simply won't be able to use the network so will stop trying to submit their TXs. Anyway at this point there are too many people trying, the difficulty is high.. and if I want to submit a TX it becomes "run your computer for a month and there's a 50% chance your TX goes through". That is not totally impossible to use but I called impractical because I'm spoiled  As to enforcing that only you can mine your own blocks, this would still allow trusted pools, that is, pools where participants are honest (and don't try to cheat the pool). In some sense, the possiblility of a trustless pool as bitcoin offers is a feature and not a bug. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Happy Birthday Woodcoin! To all my choppers, thanks SO MUCH for being part of crypto history, and you have really, are really, *inaudible*. (pauses to dry eyes with beard) The festivities are hereby declared open. A few hours ago this small tree offered it's token of good luck on our mission.   |
|
|
|
Makes pools a bitch but doesn't make distribution of a new block such a bitch. However I am still looking for TPTB_think_they_need_war_but_really_dont's input on this one, or anybody else's really.
If you want to get rid of pools, make it so that only the sender of a transaction can mine that transaction (this relies on there being 1 transaction blocks). This is an interesting idea; certainly gets rid of mempool issues too doesn't it and TX relaying incentivization. And TX fees, well sorta. However, totally impractical for a normal-use coin. Might be interesting to see what happened though are you planning to start one to see? What do you think about just making it so that the miner of a block must have the coinbase private key? Doesn't that get rid of pools? |
|
|
|
1) people doing consensual trading with no complaints from any party involved is not illegal
2) even if something illegal were taking place, providing a "platform" for said activity would not be illegal. Otherwise, it's all technologists ever off to the chopping block. Windows, Mac, IP, copper wires, qwerty design.. all guilty under your "platform" law.
His intentions by creating SR (earning money with drug sales) has been pretty much proven. If the feds can prove, that Bill Gates had the intention to help druglords, criminials or pedophiles with his OS, than you are probably right, otherwise no. It is just like almost any "tool" that can turn into a weapon: It is the intention that counts. I am not talking about these old fashioned drug laws in general, which btw should be updated/deleted. I am refering to the fact, that everybody should know their country laws and act accordingly. If selling drugs" is illegal in your country and you still want to profit from that, this is not a problem of the law, but your very own decision to take the risk of getting arrested. Everyone with a blue chip index fund wants to make money with drug sales, so yeah Bill Gates is in there too. I'm not sure what your point is there. Merck and Pfizer and RJ Reynolds et al. are surely a more negative on people's health than what small time SR dealers peddled but hey that's not really relevant. Sure, know whatever some orcs might claim is your country/western laws, to the extent that it will help you avoid them. And stay out of their way, I'm with you on that advice too. But also, stop breeding the damn orcs how about that eh? Their behavior is indefensible. |
|
|
|
|
I prefer to be paid in Western Unions, thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
Fur sure it will be not. The economic system based on the currency digital coin cannot be manipulated like that the actual system. The production of the digital coin is determined, controlled and realized by the peer to peer technology. This technology ask and realize the not possibility of manipulation of the amount of money (digital coin) produced in time even if this kind of money will be centralized. While the actually economic system based at the actual fiat money is controlled by the human kind which can abuse with everything has to do with it.
I will ask again. Why would any country introduce something of this nature? No country will introduce anything because countries are not agents or individuals. They never have been People wearing funny hats telling others they represent a country, on the other hand, might introduce whatever they like. For the usual reasons. |
|
|
|
|
If you're breeding orcs you want them dumb, that way they will kill anything including each other. Then you arm them.
Of course in this scenario, the biggest idiot is you.
|
|
|
|
This is what justice is? Ulbricht gets sentenced to life for being innovative and an entrepreneur. He could also have committed some crimes, but those wouldn't be enough to jail him for life. as for Carl Force, he gets to have only 78 months from stealing, extortion, money laundering and obstruction of justice.
Call it Justice call it what you will...
If Ultricht does not provide a platform for illegal trading, he will be fine. 1) people doing consensual trading with no complaints from any party involved is not illegal 2) even if something illegal were taking place, providing a "platform" for said activity would not be illegal. Otherwise, it's all technologists ever off to the chopping block. Windows, Mac, IP, copper wires, qwerty design.. all guilty under your "platform" law. |
|
|
|
this really seeing this for the first time. anyways Nigerian need to be sensitise on this use of the coin, showing them how this can improve its economy.
lol, serious? Any coin named after or for a nation or physical place is.. well.. I was going to say "doomed" but the truth is that it is misnamed. Anybody can use "aurora", or "nigeria coin", or "Mazacoin", from any place or with or without any nazi (fascist) "identity" papers. That being said, YES, public coins will help all economies that learn to use them. |
|
|
|
Makes pools a bitch but doesn't make distribution of a new block such a bitch. However I am still looking for TPTB_think_they_need_war_but_really_dont's input on this one, or anybody else's really.
If you want to get rid of pools, make it so that only the sender of a transaction can mine that transaction (this relies on there being 1 transaction blocks). Thanks! Have you taken a look at the spreadcoin implementation thereof? Or heard of any others? |
|
|
|
Baruk Khazad Woodcutters! There have been a couple minor updates in the github repo to clean out garbage (such as remnants of checkpoints). Those who are building the client from source, please take a look. In other news, there might be some more interesting changes in the pipeline. Those who are curious please take a look at the mailing list where some development discussion has been taking place: http://fre.erepublic.party/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/woodcoinI'd like to hear from anyone who is interested in pool operation, because we are considering making a HARD FORK to add a signature to the woodcutting procedure which would mean: NO MORE POOLS. The basic idea is that this would have to happen now before LOGs are too valuable and nobody will dream of touching a hard fork with a 10 foot cedar log roller. Woodcoin has always been mostly a solo chopping affair, so this probably wouldn't be much of a change for you, just that - understanding the motivation requires thinking pretty far ahead. Even further ahead than where bitcoin is right now. Let me know what you think during the lunch break or something, I don't want to interrupt your chopping for too long. |
|
|
|
I don't why simply leaving the coinbase TX outside of the to-hash-for-POW bit would be a problem. This would make pools a lot harder to run.. so if that were your goal..
Well, that would mean that anyone could simply modify a valid block and send the coinbase to themselves, creating an infinite number of forks. A ha. Yes thank you Monsterer. Broadcasting that newly found block would be.. lets say, a delicate affair. I've been going around in circles on this topic. Now I see again what the spreadcoin guys were up to and various others with this addition into PoW hash of a nonce signed by the coinbase key. Makes pools a bitch but doesn't make distribution of a new block such a bitch. However I am still looking for TPTB_think_they_need_war_but_really_dont's input on this one, or anybody else's really. |
|
|
|
You are getting closer to my design. But you are still missing far too many radical epiphanies to realize how to crack the nut.
Did I miss a release? Just checking... I'd love to hear your ideas on this. I don't why simply leaving the coinbase TX outside of the to-hash-for-POW bit would be a problem. This would make pools a lot harder to run.. so if that were your goal.. thanks -- f_t_d |
|
|
|
I'm not sure you understood the question and you seem to have gone off on a tangent...
Thanks anyway people.
Sorry for the tangent. Care to explain the question again? |
|
|
|
Hi, long time no post I know...
I've just been reading up about BitCoin's XT or some such name being different to BitCoin Core while both are being used for transactions.
I've also read another dev has ported 42's wallet and forked it so they have a common point of origin, but am I interpreting correctly that (in this example) if a third person were to create a rival wallet to the current 42 wallet, then that wallet (if it gained 50.01 % of the wallets on the network) would become the default wallet?
If so, how is that determined? Is there code in the wallet which makes an assertion that is broadcast? Or is it, "well duh, there's 50.01 % on the network using it, therefore it must be the default wallet..."?
Thanks for reading,
good question ... anyone know? ... #crysx What determines if you are using the "proper chain" is that the receiver of payment accepts your coin. That's all there is to it. If you can pay with the coin, then that makes it valid coin. The question is thus put on the seller: what coin shall we accept? Probably the seller wants to accept coin that will continue to be valuable, that they can then use to purchase other goods and services. It's determined by markets.. by economics if you will. See e.g. http://economicmajority.xyz/ for further discussion. In other news, the owner of the github repo "fourtytwo42" has made an interesting commit: https://github.com/fourtytwo42/42/commit/10247d029446163dfe3fa896b0747d5e21d8037c !!! I fired up the wallet and don't see any blocks mined on this chain which is limited to 42 coins, in two months. Somebody throw some scrypt hash on this please!! For the lulz!! Or just for the 42 BTC millies I offered for any amount of 42coin fees mined in block 990382. |
|
|
|
Hey, check out these paper wallets the QT client makes now!  |
|
|
|
|
Props to Paul Revere.
Most of us jaded internauts would take one look at a puerile scam site run by some folks who live in extreme poverty (financial and intellectual) and simply move on with our daily business as with any CHEAP V14GR4!! spam mail. However Herr. Revere has put in good work to help those more gullible. Hats off to you sir.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
