 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
Damn, why it´s falling. Sell or hold I invested 2 BTC @ arround 2200SAT. Selling now or Holding?
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys I now just sold my Tokens to get in the SONM.io ico. This seems to me more profitable and a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Pass half Nice.
From wan.
I think it left only 10% because i see on their Website that 289.341.336.47 SNM are sold so arround 42million SNM left which is just 4.5million Dollar. So it is the last 10% or not? |
|
|
|
Hey guys is the ICO over? I found it yesterday but dont know how to invest.
It is still open, you can use Eth, Bitcoin or other coins for the ICO. You need to submit to the address for the SONM team How many Tokens left? |
|
|
|
|
Hey guys is the ICO over? I found it yesterday but dont know how to invest.
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any risks for using these? I might be interested.
|
|
|
|
I've got it.
Instead of having to move them, you could just send the address some coins. All you'd have to do is send the minimum transaction to the address to keep it active, which would push back the demurrage date another 20 years. I think that would be good enough to demonstrate control of the wallet. and you wouldn't destroy the bitbills.
That would work too, but without saving space, people have still to maintain the chain from that ancient block where the address first appeared in an output. I suppose you're right, but one step at a time. this would be the most amenable option for now. |
|
|
|
Changes in bitcoin are possible and happen. For example, if we want to have more divisibility, we have to change the protocol.
To allow more complex transactions, the protocol is going to be changed soon. those kind of changes don't do any harm to my money, yours would. and i gave you a few examples how it can hurt me. if i'm a non-techie person and want to "hoard" my coins offline, using BitBills for example, you want me to destroy them after X years (and import the BTCs to an online wallet), just to not lose my coins. i bought those BitBills for a reason, i paid for those coins, it's up to me what todo with them. no protocol-changes ever should change that, or at least should be on their own fork (maybe i would use that fork too, by choice, not forced to). I've got it. Instead of having to move them, you could just send the address some coins. All you'd have to do is send the minimum transaction to the address to keep it active, which would push back the demurrage date another 20 years. I think that would be good enough to demonstrate control of the wallet. and you wouldn't destroy the bitbills. |
|
|
|
if i buy a BitBill (or some similar "offline-bitcoins") today, you want them to become worthless in 20/100/1000 years and i can't think of any reason to do that.
you want me to send my coins from address A to address B every 20something years and again i dont get it, what difference does it make? none
My original proposal was to allow recovery of coins from a lost coin pool if you did indeed retain the key, which would protect things like BitBills. The only problem this might run into is if the lost pool doesn't contain enough coins to cover your recovery claim, in which case you'd have to wait for more coins to enter the lost pool. But they would eventually be made whole. |
|
|
|
I think we just want them to prove they have the coins.
isn't bitcoin about freedom? who are you to tell me, what i have to/can/cannot do with my money? why do i have to prove anything to you? this is ridiculous. if you want demurrage, create a new fork, so i can choose not to use it. Because you are using other people's resources for your benefit, Bitcoin can tell you what to do in order to keep your bitcoins. I'm not a fan of demurrage for its own sake. Only for the long run purpose of recovering lost coins to keep the supply stable and memory costs lower. I want them to be able to avoid the charge. It's only moving the coins from one address to another. And it's only once every 20 years. The but hell, why not once every 100 years. It won't affect you in your lifetime and it will keep bitcoins stable in the long term. I would rather bitcoin be changed, and that's why we discuss this stuff. We may lose the argument, but if we win, you'll still have the option of creating your own fork without it. As to gold being lost in a sunken ship http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18736741/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/deep-sea-booty-million-coins-found/Hardware.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_recycling |
|
|
|
How do you differentiate coins in lost wallets from coins that just haven't been spent yet by their anonymous owners?
Answer: you can't.
I know. That's why (for this lost wallet case) charging the demurrage when a transaction happens or after 17 years instead of charging it each block cannot be an advantage. I think we just want them to prove they have the coins. In order to avoid the demurrage charge, they must show control of the coins by moving them. I don't think that's unreasonable to require every 20 years to avoid that charge. |
|
|
|
First of all, the idea in the bitcoin show is not new. You may be interested in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9295.0As some people pointed out, demurrage would solve this problem. The only problem with the solution proposed here is with very durable stores such as bitbills. Apart from that, no one is punished, hoarders can move their coins from one address to another from time to time. The proposed solution is also nice for storage (demurrage also solves the problem here). Another good side effect is that lost coins would reward miners, something that some people say is critical: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0Freicoin also has perpetual reward for miners. Freicoin is different from maaku's proposal because it distributes evenly the demurrage charged between miners (after the maximum monetary supply is reached, the reward for miners is constant. Well the fees are still variable), instead of some of them being luckier than others. I still don't know why he wants his system to be like that. Then perhaps we should have demurrage for coins which haven't been moved in 10 years, rather than uniform throughout the bitcoin economy. |
|
|
|
right now, the possibility of lost coins leads to the risk of an incalculable profit for everybody owning bitcoins. the possibility of recycled coins on the other hand leads to the risk of an incalculable profit for everybody mining bitcoins. so you basically want to put an awful lot of work into it and make the protocol more complex just for trading one problem that isnt really a problem for another not-really-a-problem. thats so meaningless you could probably convince the european union to fund it  Increasing divisibility means increasing the amount of space taken up by the block chain. It's wasteful. We already have a problem with downloading the block chain as it takes days. We may very well have to increase divisibility of the existing 21 million if they become worth a great deal more. Lost coins would only compound that problem. There is no accounting for entropy in this system. That's a problem. The reason this solution is better than increasing divisibility when needed is because this only needs to be done once. And I'd rather make it more profitable for people doing work for the system than for people holding coins and doing nothing for it. Think of it like a storage fee. |
|
|
|
|
It fits the model of gold better. Gold doesn't get lost with no chance of being found again.
Why did Satoshi cap gold at 21 million? Was it arbitrary?
Yes I know the argument, any amount of a money is sufficient.
One benefit is it will keep the bounty on mining high, making it so that people will continue to drive the difficulty level high, making the block chain more secure. It does that without inflating.
|
|
|
|
|
If the coin hasn't been moved in 20 years, it's incredibly likely to have been 'lost' rather than saved. But again, in the very unlikely case that it's been 'saved', that's where the lost and found pool comes in. 'saved' keys can claim from the lost pool the amount of coins their entitled to.
If there aren't enough, then they'd have to wait until more coins enter that 'lost' pool.
The key wasn't lost, you've had it all along. But the system has assumed that you lost it since it hasn't moved in 20 years.
|
|
|
|
I was watching the Bitcoin show and Yifu Guo mentioned having a 3 year window for bitcoins to be immobile, and then they go back into the mining pool, so that they can be recovered. This seems like a good idea with one caveat. That makes it less desirable to hold onto as long term investments, e.g. bitbills. So I'm thinking about a way around that. I'd suggest a 10-20 year window, because it's not all that crucial that they come back into circulation, it's only for a time when most bitcoins are completely lost that there are perhaps only 1 million in circulation because 20 million of them have been lost. So I think after that amount of time we should allow those coins to be mined again. However, I think it's important to allow those who do have a legit claim on old "lost" coins, to be able to access coins if they have the key. So I suggest there be a pool of lost coins that all coins older than the window go into. Claiming coins will be given priority, so if you have a "lost" key, you get the coins from that pool. As other coins are lost that pool will be continually fed, and with a 10 year window it will be increasingly unlikely that that pool will be depleted. The pool will be continuously mined normally at some equilibrium rate with the Loss rate and the Reclaiming rate. Let me know what you think. |
|
|
|
I just created a new video explaining how bitcoin has a use value beyond exchange. It's along the lines of proof of work being used for capcha. But I thought it'd be nice to have the explanation in video form.
You did a very good job putting your video together from an organizational and production standpoint. I wish I could make videos that good  However, I really have difficult with the arguments you put forward. Thank you. I don't think capcha is an example of use beyond "exchange". I think the reason bitcoin can be used in place of capcha is the low transaction costs of the "exchange" (i.e. it wouldn't work with paypal because paypel has high fees, but if paypal had a $0.01 fee then it probably could work in place of capcha as well). Anyway, regardless, a bitcoin exchange in place of capcha it is still an exchange of something of value between the visitor wanting access and website owner wanting to avoid spam. I agree it is a very small exchange that most visitors consider negligible, but it is still an exchange of high enough value to prevent a spammer from making the exchange.
Let me see if I can separate the two. What I meant by "exchange" value is that somebody gives it to someone in exchange for a good, and they accepted it because they would be able to exchange it for a good in the future. This type of exchange is value for future value from someone else. Whereas the capcha is a value for value now from that person. They aren't accepting it solely to be able to exchange it for something later, but to ensure something in the immediate. It avoids the greater fool problem some people thing bitcoin has. Also, I don't view "proof is work" as giving money value. Would you rather have a coin that promised “Someone was given this coin as proof they mowed a yard” or a coin that promised “I'll mow your yard when you give me this coin”. There is a very big difference between proof of past work and a guarantee of future work. The thing people value is the guarantee of future work and proof of work does not necessarily correspond to getting future work. For example, if someone dug a ditch, took a picture of the ditch, and then filled the ditch back up, then the "proof of work" picture they took would not really have any value even if the picture were a certified by a notary as legitimate proof that dug a ditch and filled it. Anyway, I think the concept of "proof of work" giving something value does not make sense when you really take time to think about it.
Neither do I, I view the future spam blocking applications as giving it value. The proof of work only shows why it has future spam blocking potential. |
|
|
|
That high compression noise in background is too disturbing to me.
I'm currently re compiling the movie with a more noise reduced audio. Edit: It's up |
|
|
|
|
