It's been discussed and proposed many times. I think it's possible that a micronation could adopt btc in the future, but not ones like Sealand as it doesn't seem practical. I guess we can only wait and see.
Yes, Sealand is too small and probably dd not have enough bandwidth to download the blockchain. |
|
|
|
I guess there will come a time when retailers will set the value of BTC?
This will happen once vendors start pricing items in BTC and absorbing the exchange rate risk. They only will do that if they perceive that doing so would increase the volume of sales. |
|
|
|
i'm wondering how if all the countries in this world forbid of using and doing the transaction of bitcoin including buy and sell and convert it to fiat currency in all the country in this world, what will gonna do, is it will be the end of bitcoin or is there any solution if it happen
You need to pretty much strip away a lot of basic rights and liberties in all the countries in order to be able to pass this type of legislation. This might happen in a few countries, but I just can't see this happening everywhere without public backlash. |
|
|
|
|
I would vote for whatever you are most comfortable with. I already have a proven system to secure and manage private keys used to encrypt/decrypt sensitive and important information related to my line of work. I simply extended it to protect my wallet.dat - I PGP encrypt my wallet and store redundant copies in plain sight in the cloud.
|
|
|
|
So you are saying there is an equivalent of 95% of todays hashingpower somewhere in a warehouse just waiting for this to happen?
Nope, im saying if mining would be 95% easier new miners would pop quicker than you can think of  True, I suspect that as well. I however doubt that it would be enough to reach "100%" again. If it would be "easy" to gather as much hashingpower as currently is around a 51% attack would be "easy" as well. I doubt recovery would be a matter of days, weeks or even months are more likely. I can live with 20 minute confirmation times, so recovery to 50% is good enough for me. |
|
|
|
|
If this were to happen, I am certain that we would never get to see the theoretical 40 week wait till the next difficulty adjustment. ASIC factories would ramp up production (of current proven designs) in response to demand and quickly make up for most of the loss of hashing power.
|
|
|
|
here's my picture of a perfect cloud mining contract:
The purchasing (hire-purchase perhaps?) of full hashboards, instead of piddly little GH/s.
Flexibility to change pools remotely, at the click of a button.
live-feed webcams watching over a warehouse of immersion cooled SP100's (i just made that up)
trading platform with other cloud users, to control pricing and p2p trading of your purchased hashboards.
Fees paid pro-rata by the user, not taken from mined rewards - if fees don't get paid, hashboards power down.
and most importantly - majority of the mining profit to the end user.
i think too much, granted. but some of these ideas are, for me, what might make a perfect cloud mining contract - in essence, i would still want to own the hardware, rather than rent TH/s.
This would be ideal, though if you look at the high-end server hosting market as an analogy what you describe would not be considered cloud mining. For example, take a look at Rackspace. You can lease from them both cloud servers as well as dedicated servers, the latter which could include your own firewalls, storage, backup and IDS/IPS hardware. For dedicated you get to pick from a standard set of hardware, configuration, lease term, and the service level. They set it up for you and manage as little or as much as you need. I can see this happening for mining. You make your choice and quantity of commodity mining hardware, select your pool configuration, pay your mining equipment lease, power and management fees, and you get to keep ALL mining profits. The only problem is whether anyone can offer this kind of service without adding too much additional cost. |
|
|
|
With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).
In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.
People say the exact same thing about buying miners and have been saying it since GPU mining. Cloud miners have lower up front costs involved due to not needing to ship all around the world and they generally have cheap electricity decreasing running costs. In that scenario, if cloud mining is unprofitable, then buying miners is even less profitable for the majority of people. Cloud mining will attract a different breed of people than mining with physical hardware. Cloud miners will be less hardcore and more likely to jump ship at the first whiff of unprofitability. They would probably have no notion of the concept behind p2pool and would have no qualms about pointing their hashes at the most profitable pool even if it were the largest pool with over 51% of the overall hashrate. |
|
|
|
|
Neither. The thread was started 6 months ago and they are both obsolete (as far as new laptops are concerned).
|
|
|
|
|
Monster Energy. I traded an Antminer S1 for a case of these.
|
|
|
|
As the above user said , Satochi make mistakes , obviously.
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
OT: I'm starting to see Satoshi spelt as "Satochi" by several posters lately. Is this some kind of inside thing? |
|
|
|
|
In reality though he who controls the source control repository controls the code. They won't just let anyone check in changes willly nilly into the official repository. You could always make a copy of the current code into a repository that you control and start releasing your own builds, but nobody would likely use them over the official builds.
|
|
|
|
The question I have for you is are you completely opposed to a hardfork away from PoW to a provably better mechanism or hybrid PoW/TaPoS consensus algo?
As long as nobody gets screwed over (e.g. ASIC designers) I might be open to this. |
|
|
|
HODL MAKES BUSINESS SENSE!  LOL! However unless you are using an accent-insensitive setting, HÖDL != HODL |
|
|
|
What are you talking about?
Not sure, exactly. Maybe some kind of chart with growth/penetration of Bitcoin superimposed on growth/penetration of internet would make things a little clearer? |
|
|
|
The great thing about bitcoins is this, Did they supply the blockchain transactions of such claims. they can lie all they want, but the blockchain and proof of these overpaid transactions will always tell the truth.
To prove that they overpaid because of transaction malleability the information on the blockchain by itself is insufficient. They would need to show their database transaction logs as well, and how the hell would you do that and guarantee that these have not been tampered with? |
|
|
|
I posit one of those opportunities is to interopt with a hypothetical high latency transport, which would have the benefit of being truly anonymous because Tor and low latency ostensibly can not be anonymous.
What kind of high latency numbers are you talking about? 10 seconds? 30 seconds? More? In my experience important data more often than not is also time critical in nature. |
|
|
|
|
Yesterday I made small donations to Wikimedia and Mozilla. I'll do this on a monthly basis. In the past, I've spent extravagantly on Dell, Overstock, Newegg and Expedia - but there are only so many things you can buy from those places.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
