|
To pay developers all they need is to post a donation address. Nobody needs a foundation for this.
TBF is a closed circle following a questionable political agenda which is not in the best interest of the bitcoin community as a whole (e.g. "regulation").
|
|
|
|
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
This statement is revealing enough. Most dictators would agree.  TBF fanboys don't like to have their primary source of self-confidence threatened. Relax, nobody will take away your cool TBF badge you've proudly collected... You don't know your history. Dictatorships offer only the choice to follow. Fortunately with bitcoin there is an opportunity to organize and effect change. You can take charge of your future and shape it. That's called leadership. You can follow and support ideas and work with others toward a goal. Or you can cry like a baby while the world passes you by. This is why your ideas will remain largely in your own head and buried in unread internet posts. While those who do something productive, like the foundation members, will shape the future. Of course the more the better. If you have other ideas about bitcoin then you should do some work to make it happen. But if your plan begins and ends with tearing other people down then I assume you don't actually have any ideas. All your pro TBF propaganda starts from the flawed assumption that "something has to be done". Your concept of leadership clearly shows totalitarian/fascitic elements ("lead, follow, or perish!") which most dictatorships embrace. The opposite notion "nothing has to be done" is an equally qualified statement. I say: I don't want bitcoin to be influenced by governmental bootlickers or shady characters that want to change it in some way to profit - I want bitcoin to be decentralized, independent and free. Therefore a centralized, closed circle foundation is not a benefit but a hazard for bitcoin. If developers need funds, they can just post a donation address. No foundation needed for this. |
|
|
|
|
I think using bit as a smaller denomination is a very silly idea.
First it is confusing, because "bit" is already used to denominate binary data sizes. In that case a "bit" is the smallest possible unit.
But in the case of bitcoin a "bit" does neither denominate a binary data size (it is decimal), nor does it respresent the smallest possible unit (which is Satoshi).
Secondly it is an artificially chosen name, that has no preexisting usage (like Satoshi). This will not facilitate an automatic and accurate perception of the unit's value.
Thirdly it is not in any way more practical to write for example 10,000 bits than 0.01 bitcoin (note that the latter case is also much easier to interprete in regard to value).
Solution: Use Satoshi as the smallest unit with an added "k" (thousand) for higher denominations. Use bitcoin for denominations higher than 0.00999999 bitcoin.
Examples:
0.00000001 = 1 S
0.00000010 = 10 S
0.00000100 = 100 S
0.00001000 = 1 k S or 1000 S
0.00010000 = 10 k S
0.00100000 = 100 k S
0.01000000 = 0.01 BTC
Further decimal places can be added if greater precision is needed. However for most applications it is generally not necessary to add multiple decimal places, because the value is negligible.
You could also combine both bitcoin and Satoshi in certain cases where you really want maximum precision:
0.01000678 = 0.01 BTC + 678 S
Satoshi is an already established unit and the smallest denomination of bitcoin. "k" is a widely known denominator for "thousand(s)". So this is far more user friendly and intuitive than messing around with very large numbers.
|
|
|
|
All the mainstream US news channels are comedy channels. That includes the MSNBC, CNBC and the CNN.
That's true. However it's comedy that is not funny at all, because it aims at influencing people's mindset (and often succeeds). I trust only non-EU/US channels such as Russia Today and Al Jazeera.
I don't trust these sources neither. They're just media influenced by different political forces. I prefer to trust only what I can verify, regardless of the source. |
|
|
|
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
This statement is revealing enough. Most dictators would agree. TBF fanboys don't like to have their primary source of self-confidence threatened. Relax, nobody will take away your cool TBF badge you've proudly collected... |
|
|
|
"None of the above" and Andres Bzurovski are tied for eighth place. lol
The foundation has become a silly joke to me now. They are so ineffectual and unnecessary that if they all spontaneously burst into flames and died tomorrow nothing would change. Bitcoin would just march on forward without them.
+1. The bitcoin foundation has done nothing important, and we don't really need it. They're not needed and if we allow them to follow their agenda it will hurt bitcoin. TBF is an undemocratic closed lobbyist circle which supports governmental overregulation and is betraying the heart of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Die dort beschriebene Gefahr (Kurve so konstruiert, dass Primfaktorzerlegung möglich) ist schon länger bekannt, sie stellt ein grundsätzliches implementierungsunabhängiges systemisches Risiko der ECC dar (zumindest für alle Implementierungen die die zumeist als Standard deklarierte Kurve nutzen), hat aber nach meinem Verständnis keinen Bezug zum Paper, wo es um implementierungsabhängige Schwachstellen geht. |
|
|
|
|
Without doubt, this news has some significance. However the question is when will their plan materialize...
|
|
|
|
China bans and panic selling is a daily thing nowadays.
The story will grow old soon enough. Many of us are ready for fresh news.  Maybe of China lifting the ban that never existed.  Seriously: I don't understand why people keep freaking out so much about chinese rumors. If you ask me, I'd say this is one of the dumbest kinds of market manipulation I've witnessed so far. Even if it were true it doesn't affect bitcoin so much (it would if bitcoin would already be established as a major currency in china which cleraly isn't the case today). |
|
|
|
|
Leider bin ich kein Crypto-Experte. So wie ich es verstehe, scheint das Problem implementierungsabhängig zu sein. Scheinbar waren/sind Bitcoincard und Blockchain.info vulnerabel. Ob die restlichen Fälle Bitcoin Core betreffen ist unklar. Doppelte Nonces sind anteilsmäßig gesehen bei Bitcoin zwar ein sehr seltenes Phänomen, trotzdem sollte man die Ergebnisse nicht auf die leichte Schulter nehmen.
|
|
|
|
Google bekommt heute noch Klagen an den hals wegen automatiken, wo der Computer meint er wäre schlauer wie ein Mensch(stichwort Autovervollständigung und Suchwortvorschläge). Nichts davon funktioniert so fehlerfrei das man es unbeaufsichtigt laufen lassen kann.
Reddit hat sich also diesen gewaltigen Imageverlust selbst zuzuschreiben. Egal wieviel Verständniss man dafür hat, das die Spamflut gewaltig ist und manuell kaum zu bändigen. Wer dann Filter derart auf die Menscheit losläst muss die Konsequenzen tragen und spüren.
Das sehe ich genauso. Mir gehen diese ganzen Automatik-Funktionen und "Smart"-Features, die sich zunehmend breitmachen, schon seit geraumer Zeit ziemlich auf den Wecker. Das fängt bereits bei der Textverarbeitung / Tabellenkalkulation an, wo ich sehr viel häufiger Autokorrekturen rückkorrigieren muss, als dass tatsächlich mal ein echter Fehler dadurch behoben wird (deshalb schalte ich derartige Features wo es nur geht gleich ab). Noch schlimmer ist es bei Suchanfragen (Auto-Vervollständigung) und Filtern, denn hier wird gleich (indirekt und direkt) Einfluss auf die Art bereitgestellter Informationen genommen, wodurch Neutralität dem Nutzer gegenüber verloren geht. Deshalb ist es meiner Meinung nach generell keine gute Idee, solche Funktionen überhaupt erst zu implementieren. Die Informationswünsche des Nutzers vorhersehen zu können ist meines Erachtens naiv und nicht die Aufgabe von Software. Der Programmieraufwand wird sicher anderswo dringlicher gebraucht. |
|
|
|
|
I never understood the panic at the beginning. Bitcoin doesn't die just because one country decides to dislike it.
There so much drama and panic which is entirely unfounded and exaggerated. But one good thing about it is that short-term speculators are driven out of the market.
|
|
|
|
If you're going to adhere to AML legislature, don't offer Bitcoins as a form of payment, IMO.
What if someone made all their coin via exchanges? Now they can't spend them?
Get out of town. This better not become precedent..
Yeah, I think such companies should be boycotted. The whole money laundering concept stands on highly questionable legal ground, as it is merely an auxiliary measure which does not target the actual crime but only possible secondary outcomes from it. As such it is very likely to do more harm to the non-criminal general public than having positive impact on crime. In addition such kind of laws are very likely to be abused. Money has to flow freely. Crime will happen as long there is mankind, but that's not the fault of money as a mere token of wealth. |
|
|
|
|
It is not desirable, because FB is a hell of a data collection platform.
It doesn't matter either in the end, because FB has reached it's usage climax and will now start to die slowly within the next 10 years.
|
|
|
|
zu teuer, oder was? kauft! best marketing ever ja sorry, niemand hat mir das abzocken gelehrt vielleicht sollte ich mal bei dem ein oder anderen hier unterricht nehmen  aber quatsch, die leute sind hier einfach nur zu geizig ^^  Ich glaube, das ist im deutschen Forum noch schlimmer als anderswo. Probier's doch mal im Hauptforum. |
|
|
|
Würde ich dir auch raten, behalte die Doges, am besten pack sie dir sicher irgendwo hin und vergiss Sie einfach mal für ein Jahr. Und dann fällt dir eines Tages wieder ein das du Doges hast, wie es dem skandinavischen Studenten mit den Btcs passiert ist, und bemerkst "Huch" die sind ja was Wert) , dannach kaufst du dir ne Eigentumswohnung ) Nein kein Scherz, behalte sie aufjedenfall, ist auch mein Rat. Optimismus ist ja schön und gut, aber ich glaube nicht, dass dieses Szenario jemals eintritt... Bitcoin ist eine echte Innovation, Dogecoin lediglich ein Klon, der mehr als Witz gemeint ist. Da die aber sowieso so gut wie nix wert sind, kannst Du sie auch einfach behalten, denn der Schaden durch Wertverlust ist ja nicht existenzbedrohend... |
|
|
|
Oversupply of money is the necessary precondition (which is also the definition of the term "inflation" which I prefer)
Why? How can we make sure that money is not over-supplied? Possible solutions: 1) The amount of money in circulation is decreased, never increased or only increased at a very low rate (valid under the assumption that the economy does not shrink). 2) The amount of money increases and decreases exactly in sync with the value of all newly produced or devalued economic goods and services. (1) is the case of Bitcoin, (2) is the hypothetical ideal of the current central bank model (which is not implemented and may be impossible to implement in reality). Do you really think the amount of money is the only thing that matters? Why does everyone forget about money velocity? These two parameters don't really have any economic sense regarding price inflation without each other. I think the amount of money in circulation is the foundation of money velocity: If money is scarce it is more likely to be hoarded (deflation), because it will not loose value, if there is an oversupply it is more likely to be spend fast (inflation), because it might be less valuable in future. There may be other factors that influence velocity, but I think these are rather temporary. |
|
|
|
Alt coins are about to become obsolete...
Some Alt coins will still exist.
Hopefully we will see less new crap.
Actually more pos coins are being made now than before. People are finally twigging to the PeerCoin model. PeerCoin may replace BTC, or at least BTC may have to adopt POS+POW. Another option would be POR (proof of resource, see MaidSafe). The question is however if the specific proof model is that important as long as it can't be forged. I think existing adoption is far more important. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
