Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2024, 12:26:32 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 »
661  Economy / Speculation / Re: View from a service provider on: February 14, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
The USD estimated transaction volume multiplies the traded amounts by the current price. Which means increased "transacted" volume when people move bitcoins around. There's plenty of services which give dynamic addresses for deposit then move it to another address, doubling the transacted volumes.

Yes, but those services were doubling the transaction volume before too. You have to look at the USD value transferred, not number of bitcoins transferred. There are only 10,777,825 bitcoins, so there is a practical limit of how many that can be transferred every day.

Yes there's growth, but I wouldn't be surprised if those represented the growing amount of small speculators buying bitcoins.

That is adoption.

Can you show ANY services which are getting large growth, other than wallet services/bitcoin sellers?

SatoshiDice and Silk Road.
662  Economy / Speculation / Re: View from a service provider on: February 14, 2013, 09:43:42 AM
Some have pointed out more transactions, more adoption, as a main factor:
http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

But I'd like to point out SatoshiDice is becoming more and more popular and now represents the majority of transactions, and money is mostly moving back and forth between SD and the user, in very small amounts per transactions. Even so, the actual output transacted has declined steeply and the estimated transacted volume has been quite stable, although on the rise slightly:
http://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume
http://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume

Why don't you look at the important charts?

Number of transactions excluding popular addresses (excluding Satoshi dice) 12 weeks average:

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=84&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Estimated USD Transaction Volume 12 weeks average:

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?showDataPoints=false&timespan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=84&scale=0&address=
663  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 12, 2013, 03:08:38 PM
I can't watch.

Your paper wallets are enjoying this run  Cheesy
664  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 12, 2013, 10:23:16 AM
$25 Grin
665  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 11, 2013, 09:46:33 PM
So what is wrong with LTC why do people hate on them? Is the structure of the coin sound? Does it have a design flaw? What is the deal with the high sending fee for small amounts of LTC? Is the price stable? Do the price move more evenly than BTC?

So far like it. I was thinking of only selling LTC and letting my customers exchange for BTC on BTC-e. Does anyone see any problem with doing that? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks 


Litecoin wasn't first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

So who cares?

New users.
666  Economy / Speculation / Re: will we hit $25 this week? on: February 11, 2013, 09:05:29 PM
$30 is more interesting to ask about  Cheesy
667  Economy / Speculation / Re: BTC price shooting up to $24/BTC on: February 11, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
This is good reading:

http://www.runtogold.com/2012/12/during-2012-fiat-currencies-and-gold-collapse-against-bitcoin/
668  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 11, 2013, 08:40:33 PM
So what is wrong with LTC why do people hate on them? Is the structure of the coin sound? Does it have a design flaw? What is the deal with the high sending fee for small amounts of LTC? Is the price stable? Do the price move more evenly than BTC?

So far like it. I was thinking of only selling LTC and letting my customers exchange for BTC on BTC-e. Does anyone see any problem with doing that? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks 


Litecoin wasn't first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
669  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 10, 2013, 10:35:57 PM
Adam, last chance to buy under $25  Cheesy
670  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 10, 2013, 10:17:22 PM
$24  Grin
671  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 09, 2013, 08:54:25 PM
I love this weekend dip!  Cheesy

Cheers!!  Grin
672  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 09, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
it's highly unlikely that we will see the price dip to below $2 as it was in November 2011,

I don't think it went below $2.

1.994
673  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 09, 2013, 11:03:39 AM
$23  Grin
674  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 08, 2013, 08:16:14 AM
its almost over!
BUY BUY BUY

Are you going to buy now and sell low in the coming Saturday dip? Roll Eyes
I feel very Panicky...

i'm thinking about buying all in....

Are you gonna sell your litecoins? Wow!

 Grin
675  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain rollback limit? on: February 06, 2013, 08:16:04 PM
During a rollback that goes back to the last Gavin checkpoint the attacker with the bad chain can only double spend coins that he owned before Gavin's checkpoint. He can also exclude everyone's transactions from the block chain that happened since the chechpoint. Or maybe he won't exclude people's transactions therefore most won't care which chain is good or bad. Let's assume this is a none monetary attacker where the goal is to discredit Bitcoin. So we will assume he has excluded ever transaction he doesn't own. Every node on the network will still know about these transactions they will just become unconfirmed... that is the WORST case scenario. Once the attack is over those transactions can be reconfirmed. Also everyone will still have the shorter good chain on disk it is not like it would be deleted.
You're assuming an attacker trying to discredit Bitcoin who doesn't actually do anything to discredit Bitcoin!

A realistic attacker would deposit a large number of Bitcoins to Mt. Gox and then wait. When he introduces his own rollback chain, it will include a double spend of that deposit to Mt. Gox. This will invalidate all transactions that re-spend those coins, all transactions that re-spend outputs of transactions that spend those coins, and so on. With just a bit of effort, he can invalidate a significant fraction of the transactions that occurred in that time period. He could probably invalidate more than half of them with moderate effort.

He doesn't even need a lot of money to do this. He can deposit, withdraw different coins, and deposit again. He can then double spend both of those deposits, doing double damage with the same coins. (Assuming that double-spending his first deposit doesn't contaminate his own withdrawal. But if it does, then he's already doing major damage.)


An attacker don't need to do a double spend with his own coins. All mined coins from the rolled back blocks will disappear, making all transaction that can be traced back to these coins invalid.
676  Economy / Economics / Re: Argentina about to become a hot bitcoin market.... on: February 06, 2013, 07:14:53 PM
I'm looking to acquire some pesos so if anyone is interested in buying BTC in Buenos Aires without fees, please pm me.

You could try the mailing list mentioned here.

http://thebluemarket.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/bitcoin-dollars-and-pot-banging-protests-in-argentina/
677  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain rollback limit? on: February 06, 2013, 12:52:22 AM
User base... fewest users. Sorry for my bad English.

What I'm suggesting isn't perfect. But if you set the rollback limit big enough, it can't be worse than how it is today.
How do you tell how many users are using a particular fork?

Time will tell...

(Time to go to bed.)
678  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain rollback limit? on: February 06, 2013, 12:50:42 AM
I suspect that there is a reason that none of the many attempts to create a crypto-currency succeeded until Satoshi put together the idea of a proof-of-work transaction ledger.  Attempting to short-circuit this solution simply results in a currency that becomes more and more like the many that failed in the past, and more and more likely to fail for the same reasons.  There is enough risk with the checkpoints that are already coded into the clients.  Trying to create a moving checkpoint that tries to actively keep up with the blockchain as it grows sounds like a disaster to me.  If it was implemented, I'd probably abandon bitcoin and look for something else.

So, if I change my client so it does this, would you abandon bitcoin?

No one can stop me Wink
Nope, but I and all the other bitcoin users won't be using your client.  So if a reorganization occurs that puts the rest of the bitcoin world on a different blockchain than you, then you'll just have to accept the world's blockchain anyhow, defeating the purpose of your client.

When the original blockchain is rolled back 12 months, people will jump over to my blockchain  Cheesy
679  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain rollback limit? on: February 06, 2013, 12:46:25 AM
I suspect that there is a reason that none of the many attempts to create a crypto-currency succeeded until Satoshi put together the idea of a proof-of-work transaction ledger.  Attempting to short-circuit this solution simply results in a currency that becomes more and more like the many that failed in the past, and more and more likely to fail for the same reasons.  There is enough risk with the checkpoints that are already coded into the clients.  Trying to create a moving checkpoint that tries to actively keep up with the blockchain as it grows sounds like a disaster to me.  If it was implemented, I'd probably abandon bitcoin and look for something else.

So, if I change my client so it does this, would you abandon bitcoin?

No one can stop me Wink
680  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain rollback limit? on: February 06, 2013, 12:37:39 AM
Could you just run 2 clients using different chains and live in both worlds?

I believe the chain with the smallest user base will die...
What's a user base? How can you tell whether people trust A-Bitcoins or B-Bitcoins or R-Bitcoins or... et cetera et cetera? Today, we trust a hashrate-weighted poll of miners; whichever branch has the most hashing power determines the "true" blockchain. If you have a better proposal for choosing which ledger is communally accepted, let's hear it, because if it's good enough to solve this problem it's good enough to use instead of mining.

User base... fewest users. Sorry for my bad English.

What I'm suggesting isn't perfect. But if you set the rollback limit big enough, it can't be worse than how it is today.


How easy is there for an attacker to keep the forks separated from each other for days so they get past the "rollback limit"? That would be hard to manage.
They have more hashing power than the rest of the network put together, or they couldn't execute a 51% attack to begin with. Thus, by definition, they can mine in parallel with the rest of the network and keep up. So however many branches exist with someone else mining on them, this adversary is able to equally mine a branch of it.

They need a decent percent of the users on each fork if they shall succeed.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!