@Kromos: Good questions asked  @achow101: It does not "require every single person running a Bitcoin node to update their software to accept that new rule." I f a significant number do, you would have 2 Bitcoins - or 2 blockchains. @Danny Hamilton: You say: "As long as the changes don't break any of the consensus rules, then changes you make to your software will only effect users that choose to run your software." Then my question is: Have this rules been subject to changes since deployment? If the answer is yes, I suppose this is why Carlton Banks attacks you? |
|
|
|
|
Sounds interesting........ But I dont have a clue what you're talkin about.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember I read somewhere the discussion and arguments Satoshi gave for the money supply mechanism in bitcoin. I thought it was in Hal Finneys post "Bitcoin and me", but apparently not, after checking (was his post shortened?). I think this is a very important part of the bitcoin history, and would appreciate if someone has more details on this discussion. Is there any place where those early discussions can be found?
|
|
|
|
|
Let me refine my question: Is it possible to encrypt a message using a btc address, so that only the owner of this address can decrypt it?
Since I suppose the answer is NO, i would in that case ask: Why do bitcoin use a hash of the public key, and not the public key itself for address? The latter would easily allow anyone to encrypt a message only readable for the address owner.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean an encrypted message that only the receiver of the transaction can read. I know it cannot be done in the current protocol, but can it theoretically be done with a modification of the protocol? I do not mean that such a message should be part of the block chain, it is only necessary for the receiver to catch it.
|
|
|
|
|
I know that Namecoin can be merged mined with Bitcoin, and that Namecoins can be sold at some price. So I have a few questions:
1. Do bitcoin mining pools merge mine Namecoin or other cc to increase profitability?
2. If so, how much does this increase profit?
2. Can you be a pool member and merge mine another cc individually - or does it have to be done centrally by the pool?
|
|
|
|
Yes And you're going insanely nuts on math.
It cost bout 100$ to run a S7 per month. It return 168$. Very soon the reward will halve and the difficulty constantly rise over time, diminishing returns.
Why, when you confirm my math? Your numbers means a profit ratio of 1.7, close enough to my 1.8. I'm talking about current state. |
|
|
|
|
From occasional reading (not a miner myself) I have been left with an impression that mining is not profitable - but:
By observing the current difficulty, 194E09, I calculate that you would need an average of 833E6TH (terrahashes) to make one bitcoin. With the current BTC price you then get 1.3E-5 USD/TH.
I see that mining hardware available can produce 6TH/s with 1600W. Given an electricity cost of 0.1 USD/kWh i find that mining cost (hardware not included) with this equipment is 0.74E-5 USD/TH. This gives a profit ratio of 1.8, which to me looks very god. Or have I somehow got it wrong?
|
|
|
|
Not quite correct but close.
A txOut is not an address. "Normal" transactions create one txOut per address, but if the same address gets a lot of different payments from different transactions, then there can be 30 BTC at that address all split up among hundreds of different txOuts. This is discouraged, by the way; it's bad for everyone's privacy and considered rude.
But isn't that what should be expected, at least in a functional market? If you are trading goods or services you do normally operate with one bank account for all payments. I suppose for the case of bitcoin it would be natural to have one one address for many payments. |
|
|
|
|
So utxo db can be assembled from, or verified by the blockchain then? I would like to see how the number of utxo grows with the accumulated no of transactions. If it is linear or different. Where can I find those numbers?
|
|
|
|
As I have understood, payment verification by full nodes tracks every satoshi in the transaction back to the block where it first was created. I would expect that the different satoshis in the transaction will branch back to many different creation blocks. And that this branching will grow with time, hence making payment verification increasingly complex (costly). However, since I never seen this raised as an issue, I expect my understanding of PV is incorrect. Anybody to enlighten me on this?  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will have its fan club for some time. It will be like a collector's item. But it will never be a common means for payment. This is due to the limited supply.
This makes ZERO sense, Bitcoin is divisible 0.00000001 is the current maximum divisibility, this means 100 million satoshis are in each BTC with 21 million btc that means there is 2100000000000000 that is a lot if a satoshi. If there was enough demand and too little supply then we can pretend that 1 satoshi would be worth 1 penny the lowest possible usd limit. This gives us a 21,000,000,000,000.00$ supply, this would mean 21 trillion US dollars possible to trade, which far exceeds the amount of usd out there. You are desribing the basics of a pyramide play. Get early in, get insanely rich. On behalf of those that get in later. That is my point. The number of decimals does not change anything. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will have its fan club for some time. It will be like a collector's item. But it will never be a common means for payment. This is due to the limited supply.
|
|
|
|
You want to be a part of the pyramide game? Dont forget you are rather low down unless you own 1000BTC or so, so there's lot of weight above. But if it make you feel good, sure, go on. Nothing stops you from trying to make someone rich richer |
|
|
|
|
What happen if a miner produce blocks but do not include transactions or only include a fraction of broadcasted transactions?
The reason behind the question is the situation in future where there are no block reward and miners are supposed to be motivated by fees. If many transactions are made without fees, and miners decide to leave them out, they will produce blocks with many tx missing. What happens to those transactions? Are such blocks rejected?
|
|
|
|
pegging to a commodity?? hell no.. simply because the main commodity market can then mess with prices because commodities change value all the time. how about going to real basics, stripping away bitcoins valuation against other markets.. and just have bitcoin pegged to "hours of labour" EG cost of living/minimum wage. that way no matter what country you live in if a bitcoin is worth 50 hours, people can translate that into native currency no matter what currency it is or current level. this will help stabilize peoples lives even while government screw it up, as people will easily know the measure and what that measure can purchase. EG a loaf of bread is almost a constant 0.333 hours minimal wage labour so if a bitcoin is worth 50 hours, instant maths makes a bitcoin worth 150 loaves of bread, no matter what country you live in. idea's like the cost of energy are flawed as energy companies change prices everywhere and each week people wont know how many loaves of bread they can buy with a bitcoin without having to look at energy company websites then their local pricing and then a fiat pricing. yet a cost of living peg is simpler to understand and calculate without referring to a bitcoin price, then an energy price and then a native fiat price. I disagree. Because energy is the fundamental commodity. All human activity an production of goods build upon energy. A global coin tied to energy would not vary according to your local power company, it would average out on global energy/oil price. |
|
|
|
@OP's question
First and foremost BTC needs to be pegged to a commodity. 0.00000001 for a loaf of bread and 0.00000002 for a gallon of milk. If that doesn't work at first peg it 0.00000001 to 1 yen or dollar so "Joe Public" can understand and once there we can peg to a commodity. This would stable the price and people would understand it's market value and Bitcoin would go into a much more wide spread use. Bitcoin was not created by some Kid with an idea on summer break. It was carefully thought out and designed by a person very skilled in game theory, encryption, economics, finance, programming, and law. There is a plan in motion here.
Once we peg to a commodity we can finally head into the phase of Satoshi's plan where the governments will start creating regulations about BTC. It will become the "Suspense & Drama" phase. When we reach that part of the game plan the governments create regulations against the Bitcoin system that the people are already adapting to, these regulations will actually make the people resist and revolt against the old money system even harder. This will also creates more people learning about Bitcoin and not wanting the old money system either. Because of this, the government, to some extent, will eventually have to give in.
Printing posters and stickers and making keychains is cool, and it does get the kids involved, but it isn't the solution. We have to push to get Bitcoin pegged to a commodity.
It is impossible to peg bitcoin to a commodity. The BTC price is determined by hope, fear, belief, greed, etc. However, there is possible to create a cryptocurrency that is strongly pegged to the price of energy. I call it Koomey's coin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660311.msg7533967#msg7533967 |
|
|
|
|
There is a line in the code like this:
COIN=100000000;
It tells the wallet how many satoshis that shall be called a BTC. Nothing more. if the line is changed to, for example
COIN=100;
and you had 1 bitcoin, your wallet would now say that you had 1 million bitcoins. But it would not make you any richer, because the code works only with with satoshis 'under the hood', and does not really care how many satoshi we choose to make up one bitcoin.
But why the choice of such a high number like 10^8 ? My guess: If bitcoin were to become widespread, most people would have to do with only small fraction of a single bitcoin. Not vey practical. But as I explained above, the code can very easy be changed to denominate the unit. I think Satoshi or whoever wrote the code thought that such denominations should take place as the coin spread out. Why? Maybe because such denominations it would also make it less evident how much the bitcoin money supply favorizes early adapters?
|
|
|
|
3. Mining will always be profitable, for someone. No need for transaction fees.
It is possible (and likely) that enough bitcoins will be mined to make mining for the block reward unprofitable. I believe that the result is that mining will stop completely if there are no transaction fees. If any miners stop mining under the current system, then the remaining miners become more profitable. That feedback doesn't exist in your system. This in a deflationary system there is a positive feedback loop as the remaining miners become more profitable causing a stabilization of the hash. That sort of feedback does not exist in the inflationary loop. If you are mining gold, your result is proportional with the work you deliver. No matter what other miners around the world do. The same for my mechanism. It can be compared to mining gold. Bitcoin mining cannot. |
|
|
|
Is the novelty of BTC not related to the fixed rate at which coins are released. If this is changed, we would just be fiat in a digital jacket.  And investors like the fixed parameters. It's something unique, why change it? It would not be like fiat at all. This coin can NOT be created from nothing. It would need a fixed amount of energy for each coin. For example, 1 coin = 1kWh. Bitcoin's value is only governed by hopes, fears and greed, just like a stock hype. In 5 years of existence it has not yet become a means for exchange, and it never can, because it is not linked to any intrisic vale. People are interested in bitcoin bitcoin because they hope to become an early adopter, seen from a future perspective. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
