but the private keys produced by pywallet don't actually match the address what do you mean the private keys don't match the address. take one of the private keys and import it into a new client. The two simplest options would be blockchain.info or MtGox account. Does it import? What address is listed? Assumming the private keys are valid you should be able to import them into new wallet from the lastest version of bitcoin-qt or bitcoind. |
|
|
|
I did get a seller for this one Death and Taxes. I will still order a VM pin for my phone from you later this month though  Yeah I understood. Lost sales just motivate me to improve the platform. Improving the funds available portion of the back end was on the top of my list anyways.  |
|
|
|
I tried! But the website was telling me it couldn't payout. I will definitely keep this in mind next time though! Sorry about that. The site's back end is kinda "dumb" when it comes to MP. It looks at available banking funds (which were out). Working on a patch which should make MP availability separate from funds in the bank. |
|
|
|
|
Where are you incorporated? Who is on your board of directors? Please link to the state or country website where your corporation is registered? Are you aware Capital One is a registered trademark and that pre-existing Capital One also happens to be in financial services? Will investor funds be used to pay litigation costs when you are sued?
Why are your "clients" borrowing at 3000%+ APR? Are they such bad credit risks that they can't borrow anywhere else for cheaper? PayDay loans are only on the order of a couple hundred % APR and available to just about anyone with an ID and a job. How large is your collection team? How do intend to enforce unlawful contracts? What is your average loan length, what % of loans default? What is the historical collection rate on defaulted loans?
(The questions are rhetorical I don't really expect any realistic answer from a ponzi operator).
|
|
|
|
Because noone can steal your wallet. Right? Right? Am i right?
If you replace 'bitcoin wallet' with 'your gold cache' you'll see that what you think is propably not going to work.
Owning bitcoin still requires something physical and that can be taken from you and you lose control over your coins. What wallet officer? Owning bitcoins doesn't require anything physical. Brainwallet is one example. Try plausible deniability with $10M worth of gold sitting in your house. Brainwallets Encrypted plausible deniability truecrypt partitions Backups (possibly to cloud services accessible from any internet enabled computer in the world). instawallet/blockchain.info like services n of m keysharing None of those are possible with gold or any other asset. |
|
|
|
No, no it would not be better.
The bitcoin elite would not need to press money since they would already be top dog and there would be nothing in the world capable of contesting their position.
Things will not even out magically.
It will replace current elite with bitcoin elite and you're just happy that you're part of it. Once again this idoitically assumes the distribution of coins will not change as the value rises. The value only rises as more people enter the system thus some of the "bitcoin elite" will sell of huge chunks of coins at say $20 per BTC, $100 per BTC, $1,000 per BTC, $5,000 per btc $25,000 per BTC, $100,000 per BTC etc, etc, etc. The idea that someone dollar poor and BTC rich would refuse to sell off any coins as BTC rises from $2 to $3M just so they could own 1% of the worlds economy is just laughably stupid. Of course they would sell. Money =/= wealth. Money can be exchanged for wealth. There is no reason to hold money except to store future purchasing power. As the value of their currency holdings increase there will be a temptation to exchange it for goods and services (either directly or indirectly BTC->USD->goods). If value rises, then it would be idiotic to spend it beyond nessesity. Risky investments will be a lot less interesting and that is how money flows out of pockets. Much much less coin will flow out of the pockets of the few into the pockets of the many than is currently happening. The fact that value is a multiplication on the number of coins means that if value rises by one unit then someone with 10 BTC will get 10 times as much value as someone with 1 BTC. The process of value growth of bitcoin intrinsically magnifies the difference of value per coin in an exponential way. If you show this to be false then you may have a point. Otherwise you're just having a fantasy. If Bitcoin crashes and burns it would be equally idiotic to have the potential to sell 1M BTC at an average price of $50 ea and you didn't. You pretend the rise from $0.001 per BTC to $3M is guaranteed and without any risk and then also pretend it is impossible and that even a rise in hundreds of dollars (PayPal scale) would be very unlikely. If it is impossible/unlikely the best thing would be to sell not hold. Likewise by your logic it is idiotic for anyone to spend any money on anything but the most basic needs for survival and put everything cent they have left into wealth producing assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, equity). Of course the real world DOESN'T work that way. People spend lots of money on lots of things they don't need. You can't take your money with you when you die. |
|
|
|
|
The distribution will change over time. Hell the distribution has already changed. Why did you start using Bitcoin the distribution was even more uneven when you joined. Why was it not a problem for you but it will be a problem for some future adopter (say the one coming tomorrow or next year)? If it isn't a problem for the "next guy" tomorrow or next year why would it be a problem for the guy coming next decade (when the distribution will be more even)?
|
|
|
|
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it is you find objectionable about an uneven distribution of wealth in general. Please tell us, what is perfection for a currency in your mind? Should everyone have the same amount at all times? Or does everyone start with the same amount? By what standard would you consider this "flaw" resolved? I would also point out that money is merely an accounting system. Some people are not good at producing wealth. They lack the skills, discipline, creativity, etc to accumulate significant wealth. Hell many people even in developed nations have a negative net worth. Bitcoin doesn't change that. Lets ignore Bitcoin for a second. Tomorrow you could do a global wealth reset. Blam everyone in the world has exactly the same amount of wealth. Within 10 years you would see the distribution pattern being reformed. Within 2-3 generations it would look remarkably similar to the situation today. |
|
|
|
No, no it would not be better.
The bitcoin elite would not need to press money since they would already be top dog and there would be nothing in the world capable of contesting their position.
Things will not even out magically.
It will replace current elite with bitcoin elite and you're just happy that you're part of it. Once again this idoitically assumes the distribution of coins will not change as the value rises. The value only rises as more people enter the system thus some of the "bitcoin elite" will sell of huge chunks of coins at say $20 per BTC, $100 per BTC, $1,000 per BTC, $5,000 per btc $25,000 per BTC, $100,000 per BTC etc, etc, etc. The idea that someone dollar poor and BTC rich would refuse to sell off any coins as BTC rises from $2 to $3M just so they could own 1% of the worlds economy is just laughably stupid. Of course they would sell. Money =/= wealth. Money can be exchanged for wealth. There is no reason to hold money except to store future purchasing power. As the value of their currency holdings increase there will be a temptation to exchange it for goods and services (either directly or indirectly BTC->USD->goods). |
|
|
|
I kind of agree that having the top 1% owning almost all the wealth makes me lose faith in the currency. That's why the USD will fail and Bitcoin will prosper.
In bitcoinland a few thousand people out of 7 bilion people already own half the possible amount currency. That puts half the possible wealth is in hands of 0.0001% of the people. The current situation in bitcoinland is much much worse than in fiat so..
What was your argument again?So you think nobody who owns coins today will ever sell a single one to a "new users"? If they will then it doesn't really matter what the value of Bitcoin is in some future date. You can't look at the wealth distribution based on future prices and today's ownership. |
|
|
|
|
Your assumption is that the value switches overnight. By your logic Bitcoin shouldn't even be functioning at all. For the first year or so Bitcoin was mined collectively at less than 5 MH/s. At most that was a dozen nodes. Those dozen users accumulates as many coins as the thousands of users who joined in the next year. The "thousands" should have said "wait those early dozen already accumulated ~10% of all the coins. We shouldn't join now we should build our own currency". Likewise the tens of thousands in the third and fourth years were at a time/opportunity disadvantage to the thousands in the second year and the dozens in the first year.
My guess is that most bitcoin holders are not looking for $3M per BTC before they sell a single coin. The base can keep growing while the price keeps rising. The idea that 100 years or 200 years from now 50% of the coins are still owned by users (or their direct decendants) who joined the network prior to 2013 is just laughably silly.
I don't think Bitcoin will be a one global currency but your reasons for why are just silly. Personally if Bitcoin grows to a network that rivals say PayPal (~$100B in transactions annually among millions of users) that would be a major accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
|
Which is why options or some other mechanism of hedging are essential for the growth of Bitcoin to provide "realistic" interest rates.
|
|
|
|
Since no one can seem to agree on this, can't you people simply say "price inflation" or "monetary inflation" or "price deflation" or "monetary deflation" in the future?
This. Simply use those 4 terms. Definitions only make sense if people know what you mean when you say it. Using price or monetary although verbose means the intent exactly clear. There is no need for the confusion and then the 20-30 posts in a debate over who's definition is the right one. |
|
|
|
As I asked in your denial of service thread (an equally bad idea). What about DDoS (Denial of Service) to sites that don't accept bitcoin? What is it about freedom that scares you? Bitcoin is free (as in free speech not free beer). That includes the freedom to NOT participate. What is disturbing is not that you think it is plausible (it isn't) but that you think that if it was plausible it would be a good idea. What right do you have to dictate who gets to see what site? What right do you have to force how private property owners conduct their business. You already have the ability to not do business with companies that don't accept Bitcoins; just don't do business with them. Choosing not to do business with X because they don't accept Bitcoins is freedom. Trying to prevent others from doing business with X because they don't accept Bitcoins is tyranny. |
|
|
|
|
Why do you assume nobody does that?
|
|
|
|
|
BTC won't have a defined BTC value until most of the supply chain is in BTC. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking.
Say I have a store that sells xboxes. My wholesale price is $200 and current retail price is $300. Obviously I can't sell them for less than $200 and they probably aren't going to sell if the price is more than $300.
I can't simply pretend BTC has a static demand and say xboxes 20 BTC. If USD:BTC is less than $10 well I am selling them below cost and if USD:BTC is more than $15 customers would be better off just exchanging their BTC for USD and buying one from a USD xbox retailer.
On a more meta level saying 1 BTC buys this game worth $20 isn't much different than an exchange saying the current exchange rate is 1BTC = $20USD. Money isn't wealth. Wealth is what you can buy with money. Money is simply an accounting mechanism (who has how much wealth) and thus conversion rates are inevitable. If I say I will give you 1 oz of gold for your mining rig, you would do some conversion to determine if that is a good deal or not.
|
|
|
|
My only concern so far with bitcoin is the lack of, or inability to, prosecute fraud and uphold contracts. That's what makes lending difficult in my opinion. Also, we could have institutions that practice fractional reserve banking, but it is not backed or guaranteed (FDIC). This means that customers (lenders) of the bank are at much more risk because of the high percentage of the reserves (customers money) being lent out. This makes their savings illiquid and risky. So in order to do this, the institutions would have to offer high interest rates and not be able to guarantee instant liquidation at moment's notice.
A contact in Bitcoins is no different than a contract for bandwidth or gold or manure. Most "contracts" in Bitcoin land haven't been enforced because: a) they aren't contracts. b) they are unlawful (i.e. Pirate's savings plan was usurious in every state of the United States). c) they involve thieves. Put a,b,c in a "deal" involving dollars and you will be equally broke. |
|
|
|
BitInstant =/= Bitcoin. BitInstant is a great company but it seems silly that anything they would do could cause you to "quit" Bitcoin. It would be like saying when Western Union transferred that ransom money I quit using the dollar. A bit penny sent for your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Now we can see, that miners would profit if the algo was changed. Higher mining reward is a way to "steal" wealth from early adopters. And this is the main cause why they r against any changes.
And in 20 years everyone today is an early adopter. So maybe they say "there are 100x as many people" seems unfair we only get 50 BTC per block. Maybe the block reward should be increased to 500 BTC per block. Same exact logic used now. The current miners benefit from a theft of the current existing coin holders. That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin. If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over. The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate). Sound familiar? Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one. A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility. |
|
|
|
Really the only way to make this overly secure without being annoying to the average user is by a third party service to 2fa (such as phone factor). Of course using an existing service will incur costs - and managing those will come out eventually in the exchanges rates. There is no requirement for a third party service. Almost every exchange support TOTP which can be implemented without any third party service. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6238 Of course that ignored the point of the OP which was that OTP leave the user vulnerable to session jacking if the user is only authenticated at login. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
