The Bitcoin community is shooting itself in the foot by squarely focusing on merchant integration on the payment side only. This is resulting in ever-growing selling pressure as the majority of merchants simply elect to dump their bitcoins for cash.
If merchant adoption is so high that it drives the price down below $1, then it should be considered a huge success for Bitcoin. The problem you describe only applies to speculators, and while their actions are important to Bitcoin, their success is not. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core gets all its information from the block chain, so it won't know that you sent the bitcoins until it has synched up to the block that contains your transaction. In the meantime, you can use blockr.io to view the address that you sent the bitcoins to. I'm not sure what I have done now tbh. In bitcoin core I enterd in the label box my BTC deposit address, and then amount 3.00 and then request payment.
That does nothing but create a new address in your wallet that you can send bitcoins to. The label box is just used to give the address a label. In order to send the bitcoins to yourself: request an address from bitcoin core like you did, and then go to the bitbargain site and send your coins to that address. |
|
|
|
Please correct me where due.
1, The Double Spending problem:
This is why Bitcoin is being mined. Mining in fact is only transaction validation, for which you receive a reward. Mining is difficult so that there is ideally only one computer at a time which will manage to solve the current mathematic problem by mining, verify the transaction and receive the reward.
The double-spending problem is due to the fact that bitcoins are just numbers and not distinct objects that can't be copied. You can't double-spend a dollar bill. Mining itself does not solve the double-spending problem. It is the distributed ledger protected by consensus that prevents double-spending. 2, The Byzantine Generals problem:
The problem of someone hacking Bitcoin is solved by everyone having the blockchain. If everyone has the ledger of all transactions, which are linked though verifiable hashes, so it is impossible to inject your own mojo into the blockchain.
The Byzantine Generals problem is solved by the combination of proof-of-work and accepting only the longest chain. 3, 51% attack:
If someone manages to get more than 50% of the network power by mining, they will be able to prolong transaction validation through refusal of transaction verification of the minority by building the blockchain fork faster through more power and own transactions.
-> I would need some explanation here, why do not transactions of the minority get validated? They are not passed to the 51% owner?
Someone with 51% can do two things: they can rewrite the block chain and remove or invalidate previously accepted transactions, and they can mine all the blocks and control which transactions are included and which are not. |
|
|
|
You obviously haven't read my argument about how the market was imperfect, or you do not understand it.
I agree with your assessments of the market's imperfections. I don't agree that there was any manipulation. |
|
|
|
|
There is no evidence of manipulation beyond a short squeeze, which is circumstantial at best. The short squeeze in the last 30 days that people were warning about never materialized.
I think the problems in the TH1BTC market were mostly due to swap liquidity. There was a severe lack of swaps for the amount of shorting that was being attempted.
|
|
|
|
nation-states uses their currency as a tool for economic engineering, why even consider relinquish this? they'll never do it voluntarily
Many countries do not have their own currency. Countries that use the euro don't have their own currency. Duh? In the Euro case, the economic engineering is centrally planned and applied over all countries in the euro zone. But individual countries have voluntarily replaced their currency with the euro -- something you said would never happen. Anyway, there are many countries that do not have a national currency. Adopting Bitcoin is not reasonable for any country right now, but it could be appropriate in the future for some countries. |
|
|
|
|
Same old story. Haas can't make money using their trading system, so they sell it to suckers. It the system actually worked, they would keep it to themselves.
|
|
|
|
Robert A Alvarado FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER Suite 1500 401 Main St Peoria, IL 61602 309-671-7891 309-671-7898 (fax) Robert_Alvarado@fd.org Assigned: 06/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing John D Powell (1) TERMINATED: 12/05/2014 (Defendant) Bradley W Murphy US ATTY One Technology Plaza Suite 400 211 Fulton St Peoria, IL 61602 309-671-7050 309-671-7259 (fax) brad.murphy@usdoj.gov Assigned: 06/17/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing USA (Plaintiff) It seems like there should be an indictment that gives all the details. |
|
|
|
nation-states uses their currency as a tool for economic engineering, why even consider relinquish this? they'll never do it voluntarily
Many countries do not have their own currency. Countries that use the euro don't have their own currency. |
|
|
|
Anyway, there are 5.5 million people in Finland. If you send each person 1000 coins per month, you will need 5.5 billion coins per month. You only have 313 million coins. Where will the rest come from?
Shouldn't you try harder please: FIMKrypto pays only to persons who opt in and authenticate by providing their government issued id data, allowing for slow expansion of currency supply.
I'm sorry if I don't understand how your coin works. Do you generate 1000 new coins per person each month (potentially 5.5 billion per month), or are you providing the basic income from your 313 million coins? 313 million coins won't last very long if that is your total supply and FIMKrypto gains some popularity. |
|
|
|
Even in bitcoin's digital universe, the same basic economic rules apply, with price being determined by supply and demand. But bitcoin's algorithm makes the supply of bitcoins constant, meaning that demand fluctuates.
The author has not a clue about what he is writing. That statement could not be more wrong and it is the basis for the entire article. |
|
|
|
I recommend Mycelium. You keep control of your private keys and it can track watch-only addresses (paper wallets) too.
I recommend Airbitz. It is very easy to use and very secure. Unlike Mycelium, your keys are never stored unencrypted. |
|
|
|
|
Nice. I have been waiting for someone to sell pandas for bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
There should be some losers and there should be some winners, everybody can't be winners as you plan in this system.
When you create value, everyone wins. It's a positive sum game instead of zero sum game. It's dependent on the will and activity of a sovereign party who can direct his efforts to produce something useful to the actual existence from the realm of ideas. That's exactly what we as an association have done. The result is here for everyone to see: free money. Well, that is a very common misconception. You haven't created value. You have created something that can be used to represent value. Anyway, there are 5.5 million people in Finland. If you send each person 1000 coins per month, you will need 5.5 billion coins per month. You only have 313 million coins. Where will the rest come from? |
|
|
|
|
I don't know why people are asking what appear to be serious questions here when we all know this is a scam.
Please don't give them any more legitimacy, and allow them to sucker some poor newbies into sending them money.
|
|
|
|
|
This is similar to Coinapult's LOCKS. You can hold value in many forms and then convert it to spend it.
|
|
|
|
|
tl;dr: In the future, mining without recycling waste heat will be unprofitable. Recycled waste heat from mining is not useful for anything but heating water, so electric water heaters will be the miners of tomorrow. Power companies will set up pools and mining will be at least as decentralized as power companies.
I think his insight that profitable mining will necessitate recycling of waste heat is good, but I don't think the conclusions that follow are strong.
|
|
|
|
|
"Silicone Valley" sigh.
It was not a great interview. He made some points, but he really didn't answer her question until the last 10 seconds.
|
|
|
|
How can be bitcoin backed by commodity? Will mighty God Satoshi come once again to computer and change bitcoin code and peg it to gold or barley?
...
1 - you don't need Satoshi to change the protocol 2- you don't need to change the protocol to get bitcoin backed with something Yes. All that is needed to back Bitcoin is for someone to be willing to buy an unlimited number of bitcoins for a set amount of something. For example, if the Federal Reserve were wiling to buy all the bitcoins at a price of $1 each, then Bitcoin would be backed by the dollar. |
|
|
|
|
But what is gold backed by?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
