You do understand you question makes no sense?  It would be like asking.  I put $1 somewhere, for something can I get it back and then posting it on a random forum.

So the answer is .... maybe.

Bitcoin works on consensus.  For it to work everyone must use the same terminology.  It would be like if three different groups each defined a foot as 12", 9" and 5000" and each group simply called their "foot" a "foot".  One could see how it would be complete chaos.

Since Bitcoin works on consensus and you will never convince 100.00000000000000000000000% of users to change to a new naming convention it simply will never happen.  You can (depending on the wallet) has it show amounts in mBTC or nBTC or Satoshis (the smallest unit) if you prefer.  They aren't Bitcoins. 

1 BTC is 100,000,000 satoshis.  There will be no more than 21M BTC.

It can't be optional.  The bitcoin network works on the concept of unspent outputs.  Think of them like a bill.  If you have a $20 can you spend half of it?  Can you tear $3 worth off it it and hand it to the clerk to pay for a $3 purchase?  Of course not.  Unspent outputs can't be "partially spent" either.  So when you have an unspent output worth 12.345 BTC and want to send 1 BTC to another user it is impossible spend less than 12.345.  So the client will make a tx sending 1.0 BTC where you want and sending 11.345 to another address you own.

The purpose of wallets are to abstract that concept from you.  You simply see it as "spend 1 BTC" and your balance goes down to 11.345 but behind the scenes the 12.345 BTC tx still occurs.  You are free to make a client which just works with raw addresses.  It likely isn't going to be user friendly but since the bitcoin network works on the concept of unspent outputs it would still work.

I would give you some money (because I just randomly hand money to complete strangers for no reason all the time) but I don't like scammers and given your propensity to transfer wealth to scammers any wealth I give you has a high probability of ending up in the hands of a scammer.  Since we both hate scammers so much you will understand why it is a good thing I don't give you anything.

Oh no.  We haven't lost money and our fees have actually gone down.  I must be doing something wrong.

There is no time series.

A miner includes tx in a block, one of those transactions is a special one called the coinbase it has no input and only an output address(es).  The miner sets the value of the coinbase to the block subsidy plus the sum of all tx fees in the block.  When solved the miner is rewarded the sum.

It is a one time payment.  If a miner never solves another block there will be no future payments.

or stop using the service, or shame them but publicly posting they aren't including fees for timely processing.

Silly neither will go bidless.

BTC:GLD
BTC:SLV

Belize.  If someone smart and connected in Belize is paying attention offer Bitcoin broker services for your offshore clients.  Belize becomes the "Bitcoin HongKong".  BTW if you live in the US and are looking for somewhere to retire hard to beat no income taxes on foreign earned income, asset protection, US dollar is defacto currency, English speaking, and awesome beaches.  Plus a (relatively) short flight to Florida if you need to return to the states (say for advanced medical procedure).

Layered defense.  We use general purpose xss (among other things) detection algorithms on all user supplied inputs.

Well that is where the efficiency comes in.  The hashing power is going to reach equilibrium where cost of hashing is roughly equal to the benefit however the cost of hashing is equipment plus electricity.  Lets say hypothetically today Bitcoin miners spend 20% on equipment and 80% on electricity.  In theory it would be possible to see a move towards more expensive but more efficient hardware.   In the future if there are some vendors offering equipment that results in a 30%/70% split then the energy efficiency improves.

If users have free hardware (like mining on general purpose computers which will already have a GPU for example) then they will drive hashing power up to where electricity costs ~= energy costs.  However if users need to buy hardware (potentially increasingly expensive hardware) then the electrical consumption equilibrium point will be lower.  Of course all that assumes rational actors but eventually wealth will transfer from irrational actors (those mining at greater than the cost of coins) to rational ones (those buying coins when they are less than production cost or investing in more efficient equipment).

Also very realistic.  Cryptocurrencies don't need altruism for protection.  If people can more for a profit and do they protect the network.  You can't stop "simplistic thinking" so the system should expect it.  All proof of work systems (except those like freicoin which steal from miners) gain value from hashing power regardless of the motiviations of the miner (true believer, or cynical miner looking to make a profit).

This the earliest orders will never (not in 10 years) recover the cost of capital.  I am surprised they didn't raise prices earlier.  

Regardless mining is already high enough risk.  Makes more sense to wait until products are actually being shipped in timely manner so you can evaluate

That being said I may still buy a Single.  I don't need to make a bazzillion % profit.  If I can mine at cost, then I can use the Single as a Electricity to BTC converter, and help improve network security at the same time (by using p2pool).  A win, win in my opinion.   It all depends on your objectives.

Of course there is no reason to place an order today:
You get higher price, longest delivery time, lowest return, and the most risk (no way out if things go south).    I will wait until the backlog is gone and buy a Single then.  Like I said it all depends on your objectives.

Basically the author (article not OP) is making the whole "people will hoard it forever" fallacy.  Yup early adopters sitting on billions of USD worth of Bitcoin will never exchange them for goods, services, (or even convert them to fiat currency) and thus starve to death.  For those not wanting to read the whole thing here is the punch line

In the authors view because the state can't artificially inflate the money supply (at the expense of money holders) Bitcoin won't become a currency.  Now the scary part isn't "inflate" it is "state".  Someone not liking Bitcoin because it can't be inflated can still be reasoned with.  Someone not liking Bitcoin because the STATE can't inflate Bitcoin is beyond hope.  In the authors mind it is inconceivable that a crypto currency could be designed to inflate "as needed".  That if one believes the money supply must expand when money is in short supply that the ONLY possible solution is for the state (i.e. federal reserve, central bankers, QE, etc).  Yup technology can't provide a solution, only the state can, the all powerful, all knowing state to ride to the rescue (and drop cash by helicopters).

The author reminds me of another quote:

Agreed that is how I always have used them.  I have even sold a few to friends but it was more a casual thing, an easy way to get friends "into Bitcoin" that didn't involve cryptographic theory and downloading a multi-GB blockchain on a secure linux computer.  I would buy one off someone ... if I trusted the person.  Pretty much no different than "going first" in any other Bitcoin trade.

If you don't know someone, or don't trust them, or they are offering physical tokens at an "unbelievable" price it likely is a good idea to walk away OR redeem the private key before completing the transactions.

This.  Most of these creditors unrealistic goals assume repayment = 100% of gross revenue and that running bitfloor has no costs and Roman will gladly work for 3 to 5 years without any compensation.  Of course if the exchange rate goes higher and higher and higher the drive to repay creditors 1000%, 5000%, 20,000% of what they lost (in USD terms) for years and year and year is likely going to run dry.  Any debt scenario (any from loan shark to mortgage) involves benefit and risk for both parties.  When benefit/risk becomes significantly onsided then one entity will seek to end the agreement. 

For full disclosure TC, LLC sold our debt to a third party so I have no direct involvement however we do move some significant volume through bitfloor so our company has a vested interest in bitfloor being a solid growing exchange.


It is just MSB.  MT is just one classification of MSB.  Bitfloor is registered as an MSB (has been for sometime) although since it was prior to the FinCEN guidance IIRC the classification is "currency exchange" not "money transmitter".   All MSBs are subject to the same reporting, AML program, compliance officer, and third party audits.  It would make no sense for Roman to register (a defacto admission one believes they must be compliant) and then not comply.  My guess (no inside information) is that he is complying with MSB requirements.  He can file with FinCEN to have the MSB classification changed. 

He has.  The private key has two components, call them k1 & k2.   The user generates one key (k1) and keeps it a secret from the issuer, the issuer does the same (k2).  Each of those sub private keys has a public key P1 & P2 which the counterparties independently create.  Now the security comes from the fact that both parties exchange public keys (i.e. P1 & P2) but never exchange private keys (k1 & k2).

With some ECDSA "magic" you can combine the P1 & P2 to produce the full public key (P) without either party (user or coin issuer) knowing the complete private key.  P (full public key) goes on the outside of the coin/token.  k2 is hidden inside.  The user adds k1 to the token (or keeps it separately secure).  Yes this is provably impossible.  The issuer never knows the full private key. Now there are a lot more steps involved so the trick is to find a way to mass produce the process in a cost effective manner.  I believe Cassius only uses two factor keys on the larger denomination tokens.


BTW I am pretty sure those tokens are more useful as  secure offline storage and maybe some casual trading between trusted parties then as a non-electronic currency.  The reality is that counterfeiting detection is a problem with any currency and nation states are able to subsidize that cost.  A $100 might really cost $104 when you add the printing, transportation, anti-counterfeiting R&D, and enforcement costs.  Now that $4 premium is subsidized by taxpayers so a bank will trade you $100 in digital USD for a $100 token (known as a federal reserve note) but no private currency has that option.   The costs can't be hidden and that makes them less attractive.  I am sure Cassius could make even higher security tokens but it is a never ending arms race and that makes the tokens more and more expensive (premium over face value).

Simple version: no.

For there to be any disruption adoption would have to be on a massive scale (i.e. millions of new users every week).  Bitcoin would implode under such adoption.  The infrastructure (imagine MtGox getting hit with 200x as much volume .... next month), the codebase (not exactly Grandma friendly yet), and the protocol (unresolved issues like tx fee marketplace, 1MB limit, etc).

Now nothing of these are impossible obstacles but they will take time.  Bitcoin in 2013 looks a lot different then Bitcoin in 2009 and likewise Bitcoin in 2019 is going to look even better.   If millions upon millions of people poured into Bitcoin today it likely would freeze up.  Bitcoin would survive but it wouldn't be optimal.  Some nice 100% to 300% annual organic growth is much better.  It gives the "system" (the ecosystem of developers, clients, service providers, merchants, etc) to build up to that scale.

Note I am not saying I or anyone else should decide how much growth is too much.  It will happen automatically but as growth exceeds the capability of the "system" friction will be introduced which slows growth.

Are you really comparing almost 100 years of mining rewards to two days?

Also I don't think he has to worry.  10,000 * 0 is ...

ITT someone hoping (praying) he will be able to buy at $30.  Not going to happen.  The exchange rate may fall more, hell it might fall to below $100, but $30 that is just the stuff dreams are made of.