|
franky1: Your very interesting idea sounds very difficult to implement.
xyzzy099: The interesting thing about the idea being presented here is that it is extremely easy to implement - simply leave the block size alone and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
xyzzy099: I think the fact that Bitcoin is not physical, can be pretty easily owned, can be bought and sold with little friction, can be electronically transferred, has an abolute cap in quantity, etc. - all the things we know and love about it that make it so much better than physical gold - are the reasons it has a chance to persuade the fiat markets where physical gold has failed.
|
|
|
|
In regard to agent. There is no such quote with satoshi explicitly stating a block size increase is eminent. Any quote you have provided or will provide will not have satoshi saying. Every quote you provide will imply it only in your opinion.
That is what i am saying. And its a falsifiable claim, because you could produce evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind, I don't have to convince you. You have to convince us, with proof. Not implication.
I think this quote comes pretty darn close: Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
Taken at face value it means that Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to eventually have a high TPS. Now this does not take away from all your Nashian arguments as to why it might be a good idea to leave the block size alone. I think it does mean that you should stop claiming Satoshi actually created what you/Nash are looking for on purpose. It looks more like it was created as a happy coincidence due to a temporary bug fix. |
|
|
|
yet I see people quoting satoshi to defend BUcoin. People use satoshi quotes in their advantage, it is funny/sad.
There are plenty of other threads where you can go to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the various schemes to raise the block size. Please go to those threads and express your opinions there. That is not what this thread is about. If you want to join this thread then read it before you post. |
|
|
|
34 pages and you still havnt even got to the summary of the topic. instead its turning into a game of how many times you can mention his name and bitcoins name at the same time
Back on page 30 or so a pretty good summary was developed: So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin]. |
|
|
|
Guys, what is the ideal currency? What should it be? After all, I agree that Bitcoin and Fiat have their qualities needed by users. I'm not exaggerating. Fiat is also needed. But bitcoin with full legalization can completely destroy the statehood and will rule the corporation.
But for me currency cant be an absolute metrics, and it's always estimated in relation to something else, either it's another currency, price of oil, gold, or banana, the goal of currency is not necessarily to have intrinsic absolute value to be used as a metrics for anything. And you can only say what it worth in relation to another thing, much like speed/energy metrics with relativity.
Both of you: please go back and read the thread then ask questions. |
|
|
|
|
I really like the useless paradox!
Ideal money would need to be even less useful than paper money and would probably not be paper money. At least you can wipe your ass with paper money. Have you ever tried to wipe your ass with a credit or debit card? But you can chop up your coke with a credit card. So what would be less useful than a credit card?
|
|
|
|
|
How can they search your head for the password to an online wallet? You can transport an unlimited amount of value in a password in your head.
|
|
|
|
OK, we can hope that they swept all the private keys they had, they did not have them all, and so the rest of the coins are safe. Hope.
I don't think it really matters, people are cracking the cases, the market for Alitin coins is pretty much dead at this point. I really like the design of them, I will buy a cracked/unfunded coin. Please PM me I may have two for sale at some point (I am at work and cannot check my coins but from what I hear they are probably both empty). |
|
|
|
So far, we have received very few reports and we believe that the breach was quite limited, but we urge any of our customers to contact us so that we can work with you on an individual basis to resolve the matter to your satisfaction as soon as possible.
There were approximately 56 coins which may have been breached according to this post by bitenvy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1814828.msg18079926#msg18079926So far, that's roughly $140k in lost bitcoins. 1. Will you provide a list of all of the public keys associated with the coins you've sold? From that we could check to see how many were redeemed last month and get the entire total. 2. Please provide the list of people who were involved from key generation, to engraving, to assembling into the final slab. 3. At which point in the process do you believe the breach occurred? And why was it only a subset of the coins? Were they all breached? Or is it ppl peeling and redeeming majority of coins after alarms went off? I think we can tell the difference by looking at the claiming transactions. However, Alitin has a real problem here going forward. They will need to try to differentiate between the people that got ripped off by having their BTC swept by the thief and the people trying to rip them off by reclaiming the BTC themselves and them filing a claim.
For the transactions I found. All were swept and stolen on the same day. That doesn't mean there aren't more. But, any transactions in my list are likely valid as stolen because they were all taken the same day (2/26). Hopefully there are not more than the 50+ I've found. I would like to ask again for a list of all public keys for both your Adam Smith 2 BTC coin as well as your Jeanne D'Arc 1 BTC coin (even if in PM), and we can confirm how many and which ones are compromised. Public would be better. OK, we can hope that they swept all the private keys they had, they did not have them all, and so the rest of the coins are safe. Hope. |
|
|
|
I think we can tell the difference by looking at the claiming transactions. However, Alitin has a real problem here going forward. They will need to try to differentiate between the people that got ripped off by having their BTC swept by the thief and the people trying to rip them off by reclaiming the BTC themselves and them filing a claim.
You're presuming that Alitin is planning to reimburse owners for the theft, I've not seen or read any such intention. The statement provided by the Alitin guys here is a deep, sincere apology and an admission that they've initiated an investigation on the matter and themselves. The company is out of business, what claim is to be made? The best way for those that got robbed to recoup their loss is to file a claim with their insurance company (i.e, homeowner's, renter's). These coins are collectible and have value as currency and art does...they would be covered by any basic insurance policy for personal possessions. So sorry to hear of everyone's loss. We all lose in this situation, if not by monetary means by the mark down on the reputation that bitcoin and physical cryptocurrency has been working hard to build. A crime against one is a crime against us all! I will call my insurance company but I expect there is no claim unless they were listed on a special rider. I have artwork (paintings) and had to insure them separately. I did not do that with these coins, but it does not hurt to try the insurance path. |
|
|
|
|
I think we can tell the difference by looking at the claiming transactions. However, Alitin has a real problem here going forward. They will need to try to differentiate between the people that got ripped off by having their BTC swept by the thief and the people trying to rip them off by reclaiming the BTC themselves and then filing a claim.
|
|
|
|
|
Crap. I have two of these coins for a total of 3 BTC. I guess I will have to check and see if they still have their BTC... Crap.
Was the theft limited to certain series, or were all of them compromised?
|
|
|
|
Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fitting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?
Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you. The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the direction of improving, scaling, adding value, and mass adoption. That is a lot of momentum. A lot of current to swim against and stop. Lucky for you/Nash/Satoshi(?) consensus is nearly impossible. |
|
|
|
I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).
Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.
interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically? I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ... Thanks! Did you just read the first post, quote one part of it, skip 30 pages of discussion and explanation and then ask for an explanation? I hope not, because that would be rude. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
