 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
I make a 100 bitcoin deposit at a bank.
The bank loans out 90 of my bitcoins (with my permission, paying me interest, and my promise that I will not withdraw my deposit for a year).
There you have FRB with bitcoin.
This is not a demand deposit. It's basically a bond. FRB is when the bank has obligations to pay right now, on demand an amount of money it has invested elsewhere. In case there is a run on the bank they would have to borrow money or liquidate investments. If it can't do this it would have to default on the promises to pay. This is a good reason to not ever accept demand deposits at par value on a free market. With fiat money and a governmental guarantee that your deposit is safe, you might accept demand deposits at par, since the government can always print the money to cover your deposit. Bitcoins, however, can not be printed, and only a fool would accept demand deposits at a FRB at par value. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, I put in a ws2_32.dll from an xp-install in my bitcoin.exe directory, then it complained about ntdll.dll, and I put that in there, to no avail. I don't really feel like replacing a lot of dll's in my system from various sources.
I wonder if this is a build issue or if something changed in the code to make W2k obsolete. I might try to build it from source, but for now I'm just going back to 0.3.20.2
|
|
|
|
|
No more support for Microsoft's best OS?
bitcoin fails with something like "couldn't find freeaddrinfo in WS2_32.DLL"
|
|
|
|
@djoot: My philosophy in life is to not spend time worrying about unprovable conjectures that have minor consequences.
2016-block retargeting intervals are probably suboptimal. But so what? People keep mining regardless.
Don't worry, be happy.
Heh, I hope you're right  |
|
|
|
|
@creighto
Asserting logic does not make your argument logical. Every miner has a cost to generate a block at a certain difficulty, if this cost is more than 25BTC+fees they would be taking a loss after halving the reward. There is nothing that says that at least half the miners have costs less than that. You just make that claim, asserting that it somehow logically follows, without explaining your logic.
@ribuck
Price of BTC also went up a lot, increasing profit margins and drawing investment into hashing power. Halving the reward is indeed like increasing the difficulty by 100%, without having been driven there by market forces, but because it was time to do it.
It will probably sort itself out in the end, but the sorting out process could be very painful I'm afraid.
I think the main problem is the 2016 block retarget interval, which IMO is way too long.
The difficulty could possibly be halved at the same time as reward halves, but this alone would just cause blocks to be spit out twice the speed for a week with a 100% rise in difficulty and back to square one after that. (Simplified example assuming no changes in market conditions...)
My point is, that I would like to see difficulty track actual hash rate a lot closer, and I think this would mitigate potential problems coming from reward halving or big drops in the price of BTC.
|
|
|
|
Doubtful. At worst, half the miners will give up because they suddenly became unprofitable, and the interval between blocks would stretch to 20 minutes.
So, at worst 50% of hashing is on free electricity or are just that profitable that they can take a 50% cut in revenue? Maybe. What did you base your estimate on? |
|
|
|
On the day before the reward decreases from 50 to 25, there will be approx 7200 new coins generated out of a total of 10.5 million. Less than 0.08% extra. On the following day there will be approx 3600 new coins generated out of a total of 10.5 million. Less than 0.04% extra.
The change from 0.08% to 0.04% per day won't upset the markets, and the miners will have known about the coming change for ages, and will have factored it into their plans and budgets.
This is not something to sweat about.
Halving the reward is the equivalent of having half the gold content in your ore disappearing over night. This will cause most miners to become unprofitable, so block generation could crawl to almost a halt, making the next 2016 blocks very long and painful. I think the 2016 block interval for difficulty changes could cause big problems, not limited to times of reward change. Suppose the market tanks at the beginning of a new difficulty, causing 90% of the hashing power to quit - this would mean that it would take 20 weeks until difficulty was adjusted again, not good... This is unless fees go up a lot or are already a major part of the reward for each block. Is this correct reasoning? Just because you see an event happening does not mean it won't cause major changes in a market if you are at a loss at what to do about it... "Tomorrow God comes down and removes half the gold in your ore" is a smaller problem, since the security of transacting existing gold does not depend on miners to keep mining. Gold miners will resume when/if the gold price makes it profitable. So I think there clearly is a problem. The solution to this problem should be pretty obvious and, I believe, technically easy to implement. It also should not be that big of a problem politically, but I would like first to see if people agree it is a problem, and comes up with the same solution. |
|
|
|
Does it really matter? I think eMansipator has a valid point, it can get confusing if you don't know whether one is talking about the client software or the currency units.
I think it matters. "Bitcoin" is easily recognizable as an alternative to "bitcoin" and it isn't necessary to use the nonstandard or unofficial variation of "BitCoin." What would be the reason for capital C? Perhaps for related naming schemes these would be appropriate also then? MoZilla FireFox MicroSoft InterNet ExPlorer AdoBe PhotoShop GnuMeric AbiWordAudaCity RhythmBox KonQueror |
|
|
|
People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.
We now live in the real world where there is IP legislation.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. And here you decide to go to the monopoly court, who will interpret their monopoly laws and use their monopoly on violence, escalating this violence until BitterTea complies. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.
Great TED video by the way. |
|
|
|
While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.
Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".
There are a lot of people who, while not necessarily being big statists, just assume that the state is necessary and do not give it another thought. I sure didn't think about it before I found myself in discussions about the state with friends. After that it was just a question of knowing more economics and history before I was convinced that the state is not a public good but a public bad. But yes, it is hard to convince anybody, especially if they believe that they owe something to the state because it gives them free 'education' or healthcare or whatever, and think that without the state people could not afford these things. I strongly believe that this is false and that everybody would be better off if we stopped believing in violence as a means to our ends. |
|
|
|
What FreeMoney said. Also, lots of free books, articles and talks to be found at mises.org. |
|
|
|
|
