I'm curious though how Bitpay handles their merchant coins. Who buys them?
They dump them straight away spread out on the biggest exchanges. Maybe they do that today, but they haven't always. They started out selling many or most of their coins OTC to investors and other companies. I heard that for a while Coinbase got most of the coins they sold from BitPay. |
|
|
|
Many people do not care if others see/know they re use addresses, as long as the wallet is secure its fine, unless you have something to hide.
It's a form of pollution that negatively affects other people who interact with them, like second-hand smoke. |
|
|
|
So, two more years of wandering in the valley of the shadow of death then.
I think we can say that this is the "worst case scenario" of when we know without a doubt Bitcoin will increase in value.  Bitcoin survived 2011 and 2012, despite two years of price stagnation. |
|
|
|
how about blockchain wallet ?
it has a feature of, 4 digit pin code , and 2fa which is sms code verification.
Don't use the Blockchain wallet. It reuses addresses by default, which means you have no privacy. |
|
|
|
Free speech is powerful. As we know from the holy book of Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. The cave dweller to whom I was originally responding would not understand this. Your reply failed to demonstrate that you are any more responsible in handling free speech than the person you were criticizing for a lack of responsibility. |
|
|
|
Is a world where you could wind up with the business end of a hammer in the back of your skull without warning a world you want to live in? Is a world where leaders are decided by how bloodthirsty they are, and power vacuums are created constantly a world you want to live in? If so, then I'd ask you the same question: how much human brutality have you experienced?
This *is* the world we live in. And if you live in a country where your government has a disagreement with another government, things get unpleasant. Though the US is managing to export most of its conflicts at the moment so it's largely hidden. There's a brutal, bloodthirsty gang rampaging unchecked in the US right now. They rob travellers at gunpoint; execute pets for fun; beat up, kidnap and/or kill anyone unlucky enough to be targeted by them; and break into random houses at night for thrills. Civilization manages to survive this constant onslaught now, so I imagine in a world in which this gang was not automatically supplied with limitless money and resources via taxation, it would survive even better. |
|
|
|
There is no place on this Earth for those opinions. They are utterly, utterly wrong and deeply offensive to every human being with a brain, a conscience and half an education. Please leave the Internet. You're not welcome here. I didn't think it was possible, but I actually I find this post more offensive than the one to which you were responding. |
|
|
|
Near where I live a migrant worker recently murdered another over a $1 or $2 gambling game. According to the rather gore-loving local police he nearly decapitated him (that's where I got my NITT idea from)
How would you prevent people like that from cutting each others heads off in your world without rules?
How many things are wrong with this question? Anarchism means without rulers, not without rules. The world we have today, with rulers, failed to stop the migrant worker from murdering another migrant worker. If a world without rulers also failed to stop the migrant worker, this would not represent a failure of anarchism any more than the murder that did happen represents the failure of government. So your question itself is wrong. We live in a world that, despite numerous laws and extraordinarily expensive law enforcement agencies, still fails to stop migrant workers for murdering each other over a $1 or $2 gambling game. Why not live in a world where those murders also happen, but at least we don't have to pay the salaries of a bunch of people who fail to keep their promises to prevent it? |
|
|
|
Hi! Is it possible to run a "server" instance of Armory which does synchronisation with bitcoin core and whole network, and connect to it remotely via multiple "client-side" instances of Amory? So I can download and sync blockchain once for all other machines, for example? Thanks and sorry if there is an answer already somewhere  has that architecture and is supports the Armory wallet format, but their GUI is currently... minimalistic. |
|
|
|
Because I believe these trends are dependent on the negligible cost of handling blocks, costs which will become significant soon enough if the block-size growth trend continues unabated. Blocks don't just magically grow in size for no reason. Blocks get larger because of an increased demand for Bitcoin transactions. A larger number of bitcoin transactions means more aggregate fee revenue, which means as the block size grows the miners are competing for an expanding market. Expanding markets attract new entrants into the market, and in the case of Bitcoin mining there is no way for incumbents to exclude competitors who produce valid proof of work. |
|
|
|
Sure. By centralisation here I'm referring to the gradual reduction in the number of block-generating entities. To be clear, I claim: absent a block-size limit, this centralisation process would occur naturally and that a good relay bandwidth market would accelerate this process.
Always happy to be proven wrong; just want to give you something more concrete to work with.
The number of individuals who control hashing equipment has been increasing since 2008, during the time in which the block size limit is effectively non-existent (because tx volume is too low to be affected by the limit). Why are you predicting that this trend would reverse instead of continue? |
|
|
|
The fear is that a cartel of big, centralized, have-huge-data-pipes miners would drive out smaller miners by forcing up the block size high enough so the smaller miners have to drop out.
Price discovery of bandwidth is the solution. A bandwidth market can lead to an efficient use of bandwidth but may do nothing to address the potential tragedy of the commons concerning decentralisation. Users want their transaction to be relayed to miners.
Miners want the transaction to reach them so they can earn the fees associated with those transactions.
Miners want other miners to receive their blocks to have their reward recognized by the network.
Users want to receive the block the miners produces to they can know the state of the network.
I submit that pursuit of just these policies would actually encourage centralisation. A small number of large miners will consume fewer resources than a decentralised mass. A single trusted data centre could be even more efficient. Can you define decentralization/centralization in this context? |
|
|
|
The fear is that a cartel of big, centralized, have-huge-data-pipes miners would drive out smaller miners by forcing up the block size high enough so the smaller miners have to drop out. Price discovery of bandwidth is the solution. Users want their transaction to be relayed to miners. Miners want the transaction to reach them so they can earn the fees associated with those transactions. Miners want other miners to receive their blocks to have their reward recognized by the network. Users want to receive the block the miners produces to they can know the state of the network. Relay nodes provide a service which everybody wants. Build a competitive open marketplace for relay nodes to offer connectivity to users on both sides of the network and then price discovery can occur. The relay nodes will get compensated for the resources which they are providing and the price signal will automatically make sure we have the right amount of relay node. Then we never need to have these unresolvable debates again. When block sizes and tx rates increase, there will automatically be a mechanism in place to make sure the relay nodes receive additional income which they can use to defray their rising expenses. |
|
|
|
|
I need to update my spreadsheet that tracks this data when I have time...
|
|
|
|
|
Why use AT instead of OT?
|
|
|
|
and being able to use a single trusted Core instance on a network for a bunch of Armory instances). Or being able to use alternatives to Bitcoin Core. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
