However bitcoin isn't the first cryptocurrency experiment.
But the Flyer One wasn't the first heavier-than-air experiment either. It may have been only the first to fly for a non-trivial amount of time. Just like bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency protocol that could actually run in a self-sustained way. internal combustion engine, propellers, and fixed wings And each of these hasn't changed much in the last hundred years. Even the simplest crop duster has many essential improvements over the Flyer One, and would not be viable without them. I can't think of one real application that the Flyer One could have been good enough for. You can push an analogy only so far. Bitcoin has been making incremental improvements for 6 years. It now has armor plating, fly-by-wire, and a Rolls-Royce turboprop. All it needs is a decentralized market for navigation and it will fly through any kind of turbulence. |
|
|
|
Bears are fucking ruthless creatures aren't they?
 |
|
|
|
That is only one of many details in the protocol that suggest that it was never meant to be more than a computer experiment. This is disingenuous. Many ideas aren't meant to be more than an experiment, until they work. But bitcoin is not an idea, it is a specific implementation of an idea (albeit with some flexibility). "A heavier-than-air vehicle with internal combustion engine, propellers, and fixed wings can be made to fly" -- that was an idea. The Wright Brothers' Flyer One was an implementation of that idea. That idea was indeed the basis of modern air transport and warfare. The Wrights Brothers' implementation was just a technical experiment, that aimed to show that the idea could work. Many more experiments, lots of incremental improvements, and a couple of revolutionary inventions were still needed before that idea could become a commercial product. However bitcoin isn't the first cryptocurrency experiment. internal combustion engine, propellers, and fixed wings And each of these hasn't changed much in the last hundred years. |
|
|
|
Looks like Doge is outperforming Bitcoin and the best bargain. I guess the shibes were right!  |
|
|
|
Buying won't solve the real problems. It will be a temporary fix until it happens again. |
|
|
|
supply/demand
Why buy if supply is willing to dump for cheap, it's not as if bitcoin is going away... so just wait patiently until the bears/trolls have gone home.
It however saddens me that so many people who do not believe in something, have such a sad life that they can get joy out of making fun of others believes. That's just sad.
Welcome Newbies, for an education on trolling, have a look at @JorgeStolfi and @NotLampchop(aka silverspoon) their post history.
If you prefer dull never ending lines of text, go for Jorge's posts.
If you prefer the "Picture Edition", go for NotLambchop's posts.
Greetings
EDIT: CCMF, I'm first on page 10748.
Well said |
|
|
|
Where i can get that image but in a bigger size?
 |
|
|
|
there a way to sig a message with multisig address?
if not, there a nice idea...
No, you don't sign with addresses. You sign with private keys. It is possible to use multiple private keys to provide multiple signatures on a message. This is what a multisig address requires. That's what multisigs are. They are created by signing with public keys.
No, you don't sign with public keys. You sign with private keys. Multisig addresses are created by creating an output script that requires multiple signatures to be spent, and then hashing that script. The resulting hash is used to generate a P2SH address. IIRC a public key (not public address) is used to make multisig in the same way an address is signed by creating a public key.
What? Version 1 addresses aren't typically signed. Version 1 addresses are a Pay-to-PubKeyHash output script with a version number and a checksum. The resulting bytes are then converted to base58. In other words a bitcoin public key can exist without being seen by the blockchain, while a multisig address doesn't exist until it's been seen by the blockchain.
A multisig address does not need to be seen by the blockchain in order to "exist". Why do you think that? I see, so the output script is created by one person. I thought anonymous people could participate in creating a multisig transaction through the blockchain, but apparently you need an off chain communication method to arrange the transaction itself. |
|
|
|
64-65, 2016 will be the bottom IMO.
That's a pretty wide spread there. You want to narrow it down a bit? |
|
|
|
there a way to sig a message with multisig address?
if not, there a nice idea...
Why not to sign one message with two (three, four...) keys? Note: we do not sign a message with address! We sign it with private key IIRC a public key (not public address) is used to make multisig in the same way an address is signed by creating a public key. In other words a bitcoin public key can exist without being seen by the blockchain, while a multisig address doesn't exist until it's been seen by the blockchain. |
|
|
|
I can't see anything in the near future that will increase the demand side of the equation....
What conditions would satisfy what you would judge as an increase? |
|
|
|
I haven't changed my mind, nor my actions.
Agreed, nothing has changed, we've been here before, this time we at $200 and not $2. People think its over  The blatant fact that bitcoin CAN fail has never occured to you? You seem to be a desperate person, you change your sentiment 20 times a day, and the fact that you seek comfort in this forum about your shitty investment is just worrying. I've never changed sentiment. I'm only rational unlike many people here I'm sorry I must have missed something. Can you please point out a scenario and cause for Bitcoin's failure? |
|
|
|
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now. hum alright, i get it, but it doesnt answer my question as to how increasing the block size has anything to do with releasing 'subcoins'. plus, who in here 'believes' MP's actually has the "strike force" that he claims? my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side. That is all. I think he means that anyone that allows a hard fork is in effect creating an altcoin. He is only worth IIRC about 20M. He can't do anything to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
first tears, then blood
then tears of blood
Did True Blood start already? |
|
|
|
Don't read to much into his rant. Here's the thing: anything that can be tried, will be tried by someone. Gavin and his peers have taken much into consideration about what and when features are added to Bitcoin. Meanwhile a lot of devs have left Bitcoin because it is not progressing fast enough for all the new ideas. It is a good thing that MP has announced his intention up front so we know where his faction stands. Maybe he will go bother Buterin now. |
|
|
|
I don't see any regulators particularly interested in protecting any Bitcoin accepting merchants.
You got what you wanted? Not me. I've been against these exchanges for years. I want licensed brokers trading bitcoins on the markets. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see any regulators particularly interested in protecting any Bitcoin accepting merchants.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
