That's nice in some contexts (not only the one of this topic), but they're too expensive right now to be given away at large quantities... perhaps casacius should start doing some 100 and 50 mBTC coins (or lower, if viable)

A hot wallet cannot be encrypted while the system is running, by definition.
Their problem was in part having too much money in the hot wallet, but mainly, using an unsafe method to share the root password of their server containing the hot wallet.

You can. You always could, actually. The possibility was always there, with script. It's just that there's no client that easily allows you to create your transaction with the appropriate script. You'll need to build it yourself, what's complicated.

It's an usefulness in itself. (and why the yelling? getting stressed so easily?)


If you convince other people it's a good store of value, it might. That's not easy at all, though.
By the way, if at least you value your shit sword, then it already has value - to you, at least.


If you can still trade them for currency at least, it can be used as a store of value.
It's true that if there really isn't any function at all to something, then it will not have value.
The only thing I'm trying to say is that this claim that bitcoin needs to be used in commerce (trading it for goods and services) to have value is false. It doesn't need to, although it helps a lot to have such utility.


Because prices change?


Prices are a function of scarcity and demand. A particular usefulness of a scarce resource won't necessarily translate into demand until this usefulness is perceived and desired by people.


Agreed.


That's true for absolutely everything which has value. There's no such a thing as "inherent value".

Thank you, Maged, for taking this position. It's harder and harder to find people who don't try to shut up those who annoy them.

This topic reminds me of this great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwoqzb5R6vw

It's right in the text of mine you just quoted: store of value.


The "clones" haven't managed to convince enough people that they are a good store of value. But, they've convinced a few, that's why they have some value instead of no value at all.


They are not actual clones. An identical clone would be a "fake bitcoin", which is impossible. They are different things, different "coins". The original bitcoins remain scarce, no matter how much equivalent implementations are done.

+1

Because you may want it now.

The same question could apply to any high tech product. Why buy a computer if you know that in two years the same computer will be much cheaper, or with the same amount you'll be able to afford something better? And the answer again is the same: because you want the computer now.

Being a "medium of exchange" is not the only utility of bitcoin. All "sound moneys" are also useful to store value. And for that, no commerce other than the exchange for other currencies needs to exist.

This is very questionable. See http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/

Economic growth, or improvements in "economic efficiency" is, by definition, a better usage of scarce resources in the goal of attending agents (= those who "act") desires.
It is, though, by definition, connected to "social and environmental good", as long as you don't consider that "environmental good" = human sacrifice to the "benefit" of other species (how do you even define what's beneficial to species who can't even express their opinions is an open question...) .
If environmental good is the better usage of scarce resources to attend mankind's needs/wishes, then that's precisely what economic growth means too.


Err, such tax was imposed by a democratically elected government. The same government which created central banking, which inflated the money supply creating cheap credit and malinvestments all over, and which decided that some companies are "too big to fail" and rescued them with money taken from society.

These distributions of wealth from large and disperse groups to small and organized groups are inherent to governments, particularly democratic ones. Patri Friedman explains it in 2 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJ644LPL6g


Well, it will be associated, and not just "remotely".
I suggest you learn more why there's nothing wrong with margin trading and where the actual problems are, or you'll end up "unembracing" bitcoin soon, unfortunately...

Is not the "reason", it's the "talent/ability/knowledge/etc". A good speculator, i.e., one that guesses right, will help stabilize the price. A bad speculator (one that guesses wrong), will provoke the opposite effect. Free markets reward the former with profits and punish the latter with losses.

Relax. There are others with strong economic basis that either are part of the team, or follow it closely. Theymos and Stefan Thomas are two names that I remember by heart, and probably there are others.
No developer in the team would be able to change the economic basis of bitcoin "at will", without provoking lots of noise at least.

You're wrong. You did create a lot of value with your platform, that's why you had good profits and a good buyer. It is not zero-sum.

It's a pity that you will not keep using your talents in the bitcoin economy, but I wish you the best. I believe you'll keep creating value, wherever you decide to work.

Good luck!

That's a damn big IF.

In this reasoning you're implying that the value of bitcoin will, in average, double at each 4 years, so that the block reward inflation keeps having the same value.
That sounds too much optimistic to me.

Ad-hoc networks cannot be controlled by authorities. The nodes themselves are the routers. The only way they could control such a thing would be to physically search each node, seize them and punish their operators somehow. That would be much more expensive than keeping a firewall, and would definitely increase the level of "tension" between the Chinese government and its subjects.
But the thing is, current technology and its dissemination is many years away from being able of support such a thing. We cannot rely on ad-hoc networks.

It is not necessary (to be full node while being p2p) and I definitely wouldn't count on forming an ad-hoc network.

he, I guess I just described how a light weighted p2p client like BitcoinJ works. And plus, it doesn't rely on a single server that can be easily blocked by the Great Firewall.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I conclude that going p2p instead of client-server is imperative here. It's perfectly possible to do it "lightweight" to the point that even a mobile phone can handle. A tablet should take it easily.

Oh, OK, but I was thinking about the web app. That uses what?