|
Bitcoin magazine states that the aim is to have customer's money moved to Silicon Valley Bank by March 22nd. The Coinlab official Transition Plan press release page states that they are aiming to provide services to customers on March 31st.
When US and Canadian citizens are able to do a direct bank transfer to buy Bitcoins I'm assuming this will remove a barrier to access and produce a requisite increase in the price of Bitcoin.
So my question is: what date will this capability come on-line for US and Canadian citizens? Please site sources if possible.
|
|
|
|
I agree with casascius and I'd even go further.. I think this is amazing news. At the same time I am kind of sad with all this good news floating in too soon.... before I could get as many coins as I wanted.
+1 |
|
|
|
All I know is I'm really glad Bitcoin is open source, maybe litecoin isn't such a bad idea but we'll have to wait and see what's going to happen.
Is litecoin not open source? Can you point me at more information on this if so? |
|
|
|
So let me get this right,
IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?
so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor
A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.
An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,
A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,
A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alertŁ"
Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.
I agree. Did anyone test this? Empirical evidence and testing edge cases are crucial. |
|
|
|
|
Hey,
Thanks, been waiting to post here:
1HpSMk9knby5rbJ2Qua5ppfs2Nc9PUqCiC
|
|
|
|
If someone created an ASIC for litecoin yes it would overtake most of the network. But that would be wildy un-economical at current market prices.
So if litecoin prices made it economically viable to produce a custom ASIC for mining what kind of difference in the rate of mining are we talking about here (to a rough order of magnitude). Because if sufficient that could be a pretty big killer for litecoin; both in terms of outcompeting the incumbent miners and assuming >50% of the hashrate. Coblee and laseek checkpoint the chain, so if someone does something silly like 51% or get a block of 21 billion coins we can roll back. The real question is why someone spending millions of dollars designing and taping out ASICs would destroy the only use they have for them. Does that mean the Litecoin block chain is centralised or Coblee and laseek would be relying on a consensus of >51% of nodes to agree to this? |
|
|
|
|
Just been reading about the Liberty Dollar - an alternative currency from about 10 years ago, based on warehouse bills, equivalent to bank notes, that could be exchanged for silver. The person who set it up was dragged through the courts by the US government claiming he was forging currency.
I subsequently read that in the US constitution that article I, section 8, clause 5 states that money cannot be freely printed and must be based on transactions of Gold and Silver...
Have I understood this correctly and if so why does the US have fiat currency?
Am I also correct in thinking subsequent governments can add to the constitution but not remove from it?
|
|
|
|
If someone created an ASIC for litecoin yes it would overtake most of the network. But that would be wildy un-economical at current market prices.
So if litecoin prices made it economically viable to produce a custom ASIC for mining what kind of difference in the rate of mining are we talking about here (to a rough order of magnitude). Because if sufficient that could be a pretty big killer for litecoin; both in terms of outcompeting the incumbent miners and assuming >50% of the hashrate. |
|
|
|
|
Ah ok! That makes sense. So you're saying it's a broad brush strokes way of promoting whatever projects the centralised committee/foundation is promoting at that point in time.
Intentionally that's quite a nice idea. I'm wondering what processes could be used to encourage the funding away from opinion/reactionary based methods of selection and toward scientific and evidence based selection… always a problem with committee driven policy.
|
|
|
|
|
I read the following in an article on Litecoin – "because Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs), a malicious entity needs only produce a single piece of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined."
I'm not clear on what the specific 'inefficiencies' are, but if they are sufficient this could be a fairly major flaw in litecoin's design. Can anyone explain how this might be true and if so how it would work?
|
|
|
|
|
This brings me back to my original question then. I can't see them maintaining any real value; they'll just devalue over time. Unless I'm failing to see something key here.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Stephen that's very interesting, and troubling.
Where has all this additional regulation come from as I gather from what is being said here it seems to be a recent thing over the last few years. Is it direct from government or coming via some lobbyists group?
|
|
|
|
|
So the coins go to developers, musicians etc. Where do they go from there? Who would then take them as payment?
Assuming the number being mined remains constant per unit time that would mean they would undergo inflation too?
|
|
|
|
|
I've managed to get my head round pretty much all the alt-coins out there but am not clear what devcoins are exactly. Someone reported to me the other that they are designed to have a deliberately low value. Is this true and can anyone give an overview of their design and intended use?
|
|
|
|
|
1HpSMk9knby5rbJ2Qua5ppfs2Nc9PUqCiC
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, SEC – I take it you are in the USA?
BitFunder looks like a fascinating link I'll check that out thanks.
"That's why BitFunder and the other equity crowdfunding (asset markets) are so underappreciated." – so do you mean they are or aren't popular with companies looking to raise equity or people looking to by equity?
|
|
|
|
|
I want to buy shares in MTGOX. Has there been any talk of a public offering or any way that anyone knows of to do this?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I will look into this. Perhaps this will motivate the incumbent exchanges to provide more features. I do find it troubling that nearly 90% of BTC exchanges go though one exchange. I hope this area re-diversifies soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a canonical list of different exchanges/trading sites for Bitcoin? I'm keen to find out if any offer stop losses or if the same functionality can be achieved through the use of a combination of other mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
First question % of what? Did you mean % increase on current BTC price? In which case relative to what date/currency and I think you're choices are off by 100%.
My opinion: I would not be surprised to see a 80-100% increase unless there is a scare story from today to the end of March.
J
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
