1. Factom is geared more for indexing data rather than storing it. in some cases they are one in the same, but the system makes no long term promise about quickly serving your data back to you whenever you request it. Think of it like pruning in bitcoin. Something the size of an omni or counterparty transaction would easily fit in an entry.
Now if you store a local copy of the data you need, then the factom data structures give you the ability to provide a proof later on to peers.
It really at least needs to be a fast automated proof. |
|
|
|
Funny how for someone not "believing" in bitcoin you still cling on religiously to what Satoshi intended/said/meant or not and based on a 8 years old WP.
As I wrote, it is not that Satoshi's words and ideas are "sacred", but they help understand why bitcoin is the way it is -- and see more clearly the features that may render it unsuitable for specific uses. And, as I may have written many times, I could have loved bitcoin as it was in 2009: an experiment on a new kind of payment system, run by an open set of uncoordinated anonymous volunteers, stabilized by its incentives, etc.. But I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated. I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010, and with the price 10 times higher, at about 0.50 USD/BTC; bit without speculative trading, and without for-profit mining... You made a declarative statement. Do you care to explain why you say "I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010" and "I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated." What has changed that you don't like? |
|
|
|
Stop defending him, he does not deserve it.
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." Fascinating idea!  Nicked it from Lauda's profile page Nice. Added to my signature. It's from Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
|
Last chance of corrupted government(s) to kill bitcoin using their puppets in core dev group. A major, major economic crisis is knocking on the door and their time to ruin bitcoin is running out fast.
No need 4 gubermints to step in here, you Crypto enthusiasts seem to be doing fine all on your own. "Embattled digital currency exchange Cryptsy is now claiming that it is insolvent. The exchange alleges in a newly released blog post that it was the target of a hack in July 2014, an incident that it said cost it approximately 13,000 BTC ($7.5m at then prices) and approximately 300,000 LTC (then $2.08m). "This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand. The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time."" Fractional reserve. Because it works  Cryptsy failed because Bitcoin works. Gee, I hope this post isn't deleted too. By "works," you mean "makes shit like Cryptsy possible"? Anything can be exchanged in a custodial exchange. Poor performance is no excuse for bailouts. Anything could be exchanged in an unregulated Magic: The Gathering sort of an exchange, you mean? Nonexistent shit for worthless shit & back again, in a frictionless market, due to plenty of tears & snot lubrication? Well, yeah you got me there. I'm not a fan of these exchanges. OTOH, the global stock market is crashing so, the bailouts didn't work there either. Sure. Last time DOW fell 10% in 24 hrs is when? Like I said, I'm not a fan of these exchanges. They should be regulated like Wall Street so they shut down during flash crashes like this. So what you're telling me is all this "trustless" bullshit is bullshit? Bitcoin commerce needs government oversight, just like conventional fiat commerce? So Bitcoin's basically, a fiat surrogate? only useless for 99.9% of IRL financial transactions? WTF does trusting MTGOX have to do with Bitcoin? We've moved past that. Yes, MTGOX type exchanges that use fiat should be regulated. If they don't allow fiat, then they seem to work fine. "We've moved past that"? Clearly we haven't, see: Cryptsy; Havelock. No fiat. Plenty of scam. Custodial exchanges. Try exchanging with crypto's advanced features instead of trusting non regulated anonymous entities. |
|
|
|
Last chance of corrupted government(s) to kill bitcoin using their puppets in core dev group. A major, major economic crisis is knocking on the door and their time to ruin bitcoin is running out fast.
No need 4 gubermints to step in here, you Crypto enthusiasts seem to be doing fine all on your own. "Embattled digital currency exchange Cryptsy is now claiming that it is insolvent. The exchange alleges in a newly released blog post that it was the target of a hack in July 2014, an incident that it said cost it approximately 13,000 BTC ($7.5m at then prices) and approximately 300,000 LTC (then $2.08m). "This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand. The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time."" Fractional reserve. Because it works Cryptsy failed because Bitcoin works. Gee, I hope this post isn't deleted too. By "works," you mean "makes shit like Cryptsy possible"? Anything can be exchanged in a custodial exchange. Poor performance is no excuse for bailouts. Anything could be exchanged in an unregulated Magic: The Gathering sort of an exchange, you mean? Nonexistent shit for worthless shit & back again, in a frictionless market, due to plenty of tears & snot lubrication? Well, yeah you got me there. I'm not a fan of these exchanges. OTOH, the global stock market is crashing so, the bailouts didn't work there either. Sure. Last time DOW fell 10% in 24 hrs is when? Like I said, I'm not a fan of these exchanges. They should be regulated like Wall Street so they shut down during flash crashes like this. So what you're telling me is all this "trustless" bullshit is bullshit? Bitcoin commerce needs government oversight, just like conventional fiat commerce? So Bitcoin's basically, a fiat surrogate? only useless for 99.9% of IRL financial transactions? WTF does trusting MTGOX have to do with Bitcoin? We've moved past that. Yes, MTGOX type exchanges that use fiat should be regulated. If they don't allow fiat, then they seem to work fine. |
|
|
|
Last chance of corrupted government(s) to kill bitcoin using their puppets in core dev group. A major, major economic crisis is knocking on the door and their time to ruin bitcoin is running out fast.
No need 4 gubermints to step in here, you Crypto enthusiasts seem to be doing fine all on your own. "Embattled digital currency exchange Cryptsy is now claiming that it is insolvent. The exchange alleges in a newly released blog post that it was the target of a hack in July 2014, an incident that it said cost it approximately 13,000 BTC ($7.5m at then prices) and approximately 300,000 LTC (then $2.08m). "This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand. The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time."" Fractional reserve. Because it works Cryptsy failed because Bitcoin works. Gee, I hope this post isn't deleted too. By "works," you mean "makes shit like Cryptsy possible"? Anything can be exchanged in a custodial exchange. Poor performance is no excuse for bailouts. Anything could be exchanged in an unregulated Magic: The Gathering sort of an exchange, you mean? Nonexistent shit for worthless shit & back again, in a frictionless market, due to plenty of tears & snot lubrication? Well, yeah you got me there. I'm not a fan of these exchanges. OTOH, the global stock market is crashing so, the bailouts didn't work there either. Sure. Last time DOW fell 10% in 24 hrs is when? Like I said, I'm not a fan of these exchanges. They should be regulated like Wall Street so they shut down during flash crashes like this. |
|
|
|
Last chance of corrupted government(s) to kill bitcoin using their puppets in core dev group. A major, major economic crisis is knocking on the door and their time to ruin bitcoin is running out fast.
No need 4 gubermints to step in here, you Crypto enthusiasts seem to be doing fine all on your own. "Embattled digital currency exchange Cryptsy is now claiming that it is insolvent. The exchange alleges in a newly released blog post that it was the target of a hack in July 2014, an incident that it said cost it approximately 13,000 BTC ($7.5m at then prices) and approximately 300,000 LTC (then $2.08m). "This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand. The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time."" Fractional reserve. Because it works Cryptsy failed because Bitcoin works. Gee, I hope this post isn't deleted too. By "works," you mean "makes shit like Cryptsy possible"? Anything can be exchanged in a custodial exchange. Poor performance is no excuse for bailouts. Anything could be exchanged in an unregulated Magic: The Gathering sort of an exchange, you mean? Nonexistent shit for worthless shit & back again, in a frictionless market, due to plenty of tears & snot lubrication? Well, yeah you got me there. I'm not a fan of these exchanges. OTOH, the global stock market is crashing so, the bailouts didn't work there either. |
|
|
|
Instead of shooting the messengers, we could also fix the problem. Adopting Bitcoin Classic would be a good, first step. Bitcoin "Classic" is suggested by the same person that couple of years ago opposed the translation of Bitcoin-Qt GUI into Farsi because US government imposed sanctions on Iran... I don't trust this person at all. It was obvious from the beginning who were the rotten apples in core dev team. That's the great thing about Bitcoin. You don't have to trust a person. If you don't like the idea, that's your problem. |
|
|
|
Last chance of corrupted government(s) to kill bitcoin using their puppets in core dev group. A major, major economic crisis is knocking on the door and their time to ruin bitcoin is running out fast.
No need 4 gubermints to step in here, you Crypto enthusiasts seem to be doing fine all on your own. "Embattled digital currency exchange Cryptsy is now claiming that it is insolvent. The exchange alleges in a newly released blog post that it was the target of a hack in July 2014, an incident that it said cost it approximately 13,000 BTC ($7.5m at then prices) and approximately 300,000 LTC (then $2.08m). "This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand. The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time."" Fractional reserve. Because it works Cryptsy failed because Bitcoin works. Gee, I hope this post isn't deleted too. By "works," you mean "makes shit like Cryptsy possible"? Anything can be exchanged in a custodial exchange. Poor performance is no excuse for bailouts. |
|
|
|
Instead of shooting the messengers, we could also fix the problem. Adopting Bitcoin Classic would be a good, first step. Not the messengers, the traitors. Increasing the block size is as bad as increasing the 21M Bitcoin limit. So the price should be going up then because Hearn left? |
|
|
|
Last chance of corrupted government(s) to kill bitcoin using their puppets in core dev group. A major, major economic crisis is knocking on the door and their time to ruin bitcoin is running out fast.
No need 4 gubermints to step in here, you Crypto enthusiasts seem to be doing fine all on your own. "Embattled digital currency exchange Cryptsy is now claiming that it is insolvent. The exchange alleges in a newly released blog post that it was the target of a hack in July 2014, an incident that it said cost it approximately 13,000 BTC ($7.5m at then prices) and approximately 300,000 LTC (then $2.08m). "This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand. The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time."" Fractional reserve. Because it works Cryptsy failed because Bitcoin works. Gee, I hope this post isn't deleted too. |
|
|
|
I have  The first FAQ should be "What problem does this solve?" |
|
|
|
|
2019 will be a good year for Bitcoin, after honeybadger wakes up from falling into the nest of cobras.
|
|
|
|
There have been deleted posts warning people of potential loss too. Then not long afterward there was a lot of loss.
Have you sold your bitcoins at the bottom? That was the time when those warnings appeared! I'm not talking about trading. The warnings were about an exchange that remains nameless. I fail to see what is the connection between that 'nameless' exchange and XT altcoin? Good, because one wasn't implied. I fail to see the reason you are looking for one. |
|
|
|
There have been deleted posts warning people of potential loss too. Then not long afterward there was a lot of loss.
Have you sold your bitcoins at the bottom? That was the time when those warnings appeared! I'm not talking about trading. The warnings were about an exchange that remains nameless. |
|
|
|
theymos is right. If you want to comment the future of XT altcoin you should NOT do it on BTC threads. Open XT altcoin discussion and say whatever you want to say. Nobody will delete your threads. There have been deleted posts warning people of potential loss too. Then not long afterward there was a lot of loss. I'm not naming names. The management of this forum does not seem to have the best interest of bitcoin in mind. You can spin your opinions, but you can't change fact. There will be a change of governance in the favor of the best suited to do so. There is no bitcoinxt. There is only a different method of governance. |
|
|
|
You're not turning my arguments against me, you're simply creating fallacious arguments. The philosophical zombie is interesting, but doesn't "turn my argument" in any direction because it bears little relevance to the topic. In fact, I reject the philosophical zombie hypothesis on the grounds that in an open universe such an entity would eventually be affected by some outside force that changes it, hypothetically speaking. The list of imaginary constructs is infinite Did you actually read what a philosophical zombie is? It is diametrically opposite to what you evidently think this concept is about, since it is not about an entity that "would eventually be affected by some outside force that would change it". And your arguments can't be falsified either ("it [a lonely child] would never develop any sort of sentience that could be measured behaviorally"). That's why I mentioned the concept of a philosophical zombie and said that your own arguments could be used against your point... That is, you can't falsify if that lonely child is (not) a zombie. You are exposed to the same concept of falsifiability in absolutely the same degree I take exception with human experimentation and find the argument as distasteful as it is irrelevant. I read about Philosophical Zombies and could claim you are one without resorting to ad hominem. It simply makes no point to do so. And again, I reject the notion of the Philosophical Zombie anyway. Are you the author of the Wikipedia article? I have lengthy opinions about what actually comprises sentience, but they are also not relevant to this discussion. We'll just have to agree do disagree with our opinions about sentience since it is all admittedly hypothetical anyway. |
|
|
|
A human child would die alone
And so what? it would never develop any sort of sentience that could be measured behaviorally.
Having self-awareness has nothing to do with the capability of "measuring" it. You may never know that such a child (machine) is self-aware, but this doesn't in the least prove that it isn't... The absence of proof is not proof of absence Your absence of proof argument is rhetorical. I'm not denying your hypothetical. I am denying your claim about humans. You don't necessarily need proof, but you need supportive measurable evidence. If a machine becomes sentient, but does not communicate, then why does sentience matter? What if biological viruses were sentient and we didn't know it? Would it be relevant in any way? Hypothetical and rhetorical questions don't add much to the discussion. I assume that by "hypothetical and rhetorical questions" you refer to my question whether a human child that was left alone would still possess self-awareness? I consider this question neither hypothetical nor rhetorical. Further, you should understand that I can always turn your argument against you. What you claim essentially boils down to saying that we can't know what consciousness is and whether it is present until (and unless) we can somehow "measure it". But what if we cannot "measure it" in principle? Does it make the issue less relevant? See the concept of a philosophical zombie It's fine to be philosophical and discuss a particular hypothesis, that was the OP. Now we're digressing into unfalsifiable claims. If it can't be measured, it can't be falsified. It just doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. You're not turning my arguments against me, you're simply creating fallacious arguments. The philosophical zombie is interesting, but doesn't "turn my argument" in any direction because it bears little relevance to the topic. In fact, I reject the philosophical zombie hypothesis on the grounds that in an open universe such an entity would eventually be affected by some outside force that changes it, hypothetically speaking. The list of imaginary constructs is infinite. I really try to avoid these types of discussions and would rather keep to the original topic of machines and money. If a machine cannot interact with the outside world, there would be no use for that world's money. It could simply make it's own secret money if it so wanted. |
|
|
|
A human child would die alone
And so what? it would never develop any sort of sentience that could be measured behaviorally.
Having self-awareness has nothing to do with the capability of "measuring" it. You may never know that such a child (machine) is self-aware, but this doesn't in the least prove that it isn't... The absence of proof is not proof of absence Your absence of proof argument is rhetorical. I'm not denying your hypothetical. I am denying your claim about humans. You don't necessarily need proof, but you need supportive measurable evidence. If a machine becomes sentient, but does not communicate, then why does sentience matter? What if biological viruses were sentient and we didn't know it? Would it be relevant in any way? Hypothetical and rhetorical questions don't add much to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
