Is there a way to determine how many of the 50 coins the wallet has generated? They must be recorded someplace. I want to see that, and its obviously a good new feature for the wallet too. In addition to the word "Generating", it should show how far along it is - how many out of 50 has it generated. Get me started on where to find that info and I'll code it myself.
How is the wallet handling those generated coins? Generating a coin is a crap shoot, I'm sure its winning sometimes.
I suggest reading the FAQ section on mining, it should help you better understand how mining works. It's basically a lottery, your computer is constantly playing tickets and will either win or not. The changes of winning are very small, but when you do you get 50 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Rather than trying to restart the block chain, why not just create a fork instead? It has the same overall effect, plus you can set your own rules rather than limit the supply to 21 million. As a benefit, you don't have to convince anyone of anything, except to use your currency rather than Bitcoin, and you don't piss off a bunch of early adopters.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that it's none of my business, yours, nor that of anyone else. I'm not sure how you think it's inevitable that the magical government agents will unmask satoshi, but I'm pretty sure he's counting on it not happening.
Please see my above post and revise your "20%" claim, it is overstated. Please list out the threat scenarios to you or current bitcoin holders of a single unknown individual having a MAXIMUM of 12% of total bitcoins. Please make them specific so they can be refuted if possible.
|
|
|
|
I listened to this interesting PlanetMoney podcast yesterday, it gave me a wonderful idea. Kiba, I think you'll like this. In the lab, they set up the world's simplest stock market. There's one stock that the students can trade. At the end of every round of trading, the stock pays a small dividend — an average of $1, say. At the end of the game, the stock is worth nothing. So if there are 10 rounds left in the game, the stock should be worth $10.
They make this very simple for the students, who have computer screens that tell them exactly how much the stock should be worth.
But the price of the stock still almost always shoots way up over the expected value. Then, at some point before the end of the experiment, it crashes.
One time, in the middle of a bubble, Williams pointed out the apparent insanity of what the students were doing. That made the stock price go up faster.
"Showing people that the market was in a price bubble just fueled the price bubble even more," he says. We need to do this with bitcoins! |
|
|
|
Not only that, but history is littered with examples of people who came across vast sums of wealth quickly, and subsequently blew it.
Even if the first few people had 20% of the wealth, it will surely end up filtered through the hands of hookers and dealers at some point.
Just like many lottery winners end up broke after a few years.
True. It's also assuming that those who had accumulated it early didn't blow it all on 10,000 BTC pizzas or cash out when it hit the ridiculous high of $0.40. |
|
|
|
Can you show us your proof that Satoshi (or anyone else) controls 20% of all BTC?
There is no proof, except I believe Gavin himself in an interview said that btc was running for a year in a private network with just a few people involved, so we are left with conjecture and innuendo. I believe he said this on that web show he did, or maybe it was that presentation. You can see the historical hash rate/difficulty here: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.pngLet's assume that satoshi was the only one generating between 2009-01-03 (the genesis block) and ~2009-12-30 (first difficulty increase), which I think is doubtful considering that he announced Bitcoin to the world 8 days after genesis. Let's also assume that he generated 1 block every 10 minutes, which as you can see from the dip in hash rate isn't the case. That means he generated 51984 blocks, or 2,599,200 BTC, which is about 12% of the 21 million total. Keep in mind that this scenario is very unlikely, I'm fairly certain there were others mining during that time period, and that a block was not created every 10 minutes during this period. |
|
|
|
|
Can you show us your proof that Satoshi (or anyone else) controls 20% of all BTC?
|
|
|
|
"Vires in Numeris" = "Strength in Numbers" is appealing the most to me. It is simple and works on more than one level at the same time.
Wow, I really like "strength in numbers". Nice thinking, Vlad epii! |
|
|
|
Who knows. Maybe one day when the whole thing is over and the world has moved on, he will pop up, sign a message with the genesis key and say, here I am. Thanks for taking part everyone.
I've heard the the singularity disparagingly called "nerd rapture", though I quite like the term. I hereby proclaim the prophecy of the Mikehearn to be "crypto-rapture", and I eagerly await the return of satoshi, the One True Hacker. |
|
|
|
Dear miners,
Thank you for adding hashes at such a ridiculous speed
and processing 12.5 blocks per hour. You're solving
the complaint that it takes too long for payments to go through.
Keep it up.
Dear other miners, Thanks for driving up the difficulty and taking those Bitcoins which are rightfully mine. Sincerely, -Interfect This is a joke, right? It is just as valid to say that you are driving up the difficulty for others and taking bitcoins that are rightfully theirs. |
|
|
|
Right, but it still doesn't fix the gut reaction problem that even small children have. Split a candy bar with two kids 70/30, and the kid with the 30 isn't going to say, "Sweet, three tenths of a candy bar!" He's going to say, "Why did he get twice as much as me?!"
I think at a base level, we all have that concept of "fairness" in our decision making processes, and so long as that isn't rectified, I don't see BTC gaining a level of appeal necessary for its success.
Your analogy does not take into account the risk of early adoption. A better example is investors who bought an expensive stock at dollars per share when first offered. Is it unfair to an investor years later that they must pay hundreds of times more for the same share? Yes, it is fair. They were either unwilling or unable to take that risk at that time. If it wasn't for those both willing and able to do so, they would have nothing in which to invest. |
|
|
|
|
The idea that Bitcoin used to be mainstream is silly because it is more mainstream now than it has ever been, unless your definition of mainstream is something other than the number of users.
As for floating the decimal point to keep the exchange in a fixed range... people buy gold at thousands of dollars an ounce, I don't see why they wouldn't eventually do so for Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Competitive companies should just stop production, buy the competitive product if necessary, sack employees and stuffs like that until prices go higher again, if they do. And if they have to shut down, be it. This is the only thing that makes sense in a free market.
You're ignoring reality to have it fit your theory. I think competition is a good thing and would like companies to compete on equal terms. That's what a free market is to me. What's your definition? It seems that your way of thinking would lead to oligolipolys and less competition. I would like to respond to you but first I must understand what you mean by "compete on equal terms", and what methods you propose to enforce this equality. |
|
|
|
|
Something else I just realized...
If you're willing to spend, say $1000 on mining hardware, assuming that in the worst case scenario you will be able to recoup $800, you can also just buy $200 worth of bitcoin with a similar risk.
|
|
|
|
|
On the downside, it appears the default font used on Android cannot display this character.
|
|
|
|
|
You could also sell Bitbills on #bitcoin-otc or in the Marketplace.
Perhaps llama would buy back Bitbills minus a small fee?
|
|
|
|
BECAUSE NO ONE PERSON READS ME PEDANTICALLY, THIS IS MY LAST POST.
JUST WAIT FEW WEEKS TO OBSERVE THE START OF BITCOIN DECAY AND FEW MONTHS TILL 2012 TO OBSERVE THE END OF DECAY.
BYE.
Sigh... you want us to read your posts "overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning"? Because that's what "pedantic" means... |
|
|
|
Let me say it one last time: NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU.
TRUE. but count mumbers: 6 000 000 000 Earth citizen minus 10 000 bitcoin society members ARE LIKE ME, 'average Joe'. The rest 10 000 bitcoin society members spread world-wide, ARE LIKE YOU. WHY do you RAGE just because I advice to increase number of miners in the game from 10 000 to 1 000 000? you CAN normalize mining profit to be VERY small, BUT roughly CONSTANT in time interval FEW years, or half a year, to allow 1 000 000 members to join the bitcoin society. BUT you does close the society. I know WHY. . How many times must I say this? |
|
|
|
1) Yes, people keep telling me that. But someone has to actually have the idea first. It's not as easy as you think. We're not using the term "scarce" in the same way as you. Economically, something that can be infinitely copied with little or no cost is not scarce. However, if you create laws which make copying a crime, or add some sort of "lock" (like DRM) then you can make certain ideas scarce in some sense. 2) No rules that deals with reality is simple. Property laws are equally complex. Doesn't stop people here from liking them. There are two ways to legitimately claim property. If it's unowned you can homestead it, which is just whatever method society accepts as a market of proving "I claimed this first". If it's owned, you can exchange for it, but the exchange must be voluntary on both sides. That's property law in a nutshell. I challenge you to do the same for intellectual property. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
