 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Wow... Talk about stupidity from Bangladesh's government. One of the countries that could most gain with Bitcoin remittances, says it's ilegal to use it. I wonder if someone within Bangladesh's central bank has a high stake in the remittances businesses.
All central banks fear bitcoin because it has the potential to take all control away from them. |
|
|
|
Reddit is open source - if you have an idea, just fork it and implement it.
I may contact World Crypto Network to see if they'd like to try something like this out. Creating content about Bitcoin is probably the best starting point. |
|
|
|
|
this is such utter BS. As long as the man is paying his bill it's nobodies business how much power he's using.
|
|
|
|
|
When bitcoin proponents attack Paypal its different though because bitcoins have never been stolen
|
|
|
|
OK, FUD patrol checking in. "Control four chip manufacturers then you could control 90% of [ASIC chip] production". 90% of ADDITIONAL production, maybe. You still would need to produce > 50% of all hashing capacity that already exists. And you need to hope no other chip designs/manufacturers emerge (since SHA2 hashing isn't a terribly difficult task, that requires a leap of faith. Good luck blowing your $400 million on that gamble. "By controlling two mining pools you could get more than 50% of the network" Mining pools with 50% can censor transaction but they cannot double spend unless they first take that mining capacity offline (to mine a private fork of the blockchain). Do a Google search for "Downplaying statistically possible double-spending risks" ( http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/08/18/downplaying-statistically-possible-double-spending-risks/) for more on why pools with > 50% are not the same as having your own equipment that exceeds 50% . "Control one dozen or two dozen mining centers you could get 50%" Again ... that's a $200 million (or more) investment. If the intention is to have just censorship power then maybe that's feasible. Otherwise what is needed for this hashing capacity to be used to double spend is to take it offline and begin mining a private fork. Just like with pools, taking this action would be something noticeable before the damage is done (six confirmations on a much slower fork have passed) seriously lessening the chances of a double spending attack using this method causing serious harm to the big players (who presumable are monitoring the rate of block solving or have hotwallets or other withdrawal limits that woudl protect from such an attack). Cool story though. wait, what about pointing a gun at a couple people costs $200 million? also, are you aware that the cost of one F-15 fighter jet is $30 million? |
|
|
|
|
If I need to verify a transaction what I should do? Is there the blockchain.info equivalent for XMR?
|
|
|
|
 It's all about inflation. Can we say something like that about BTC in couple of hundreds years? |
|
|
|
Either that or "only the black market matters", one of those two possibilities...
If the public doesn't participate in black markets, then who does? I think in this context "the public" implies mainstream adoption, no? |
|
|
|
You know the best part about living right now? I live in the mutha-flippin' future.
Then where are my mutha-flippin' hoverboards?! Dude we just got 8tb disks and ddr4 ram, they were mythical |
|
|
|
|
Ok this article isn't great, I'll give you all that. But the idea isn't awful. Hear me out.
What he is essentially calling for are two things:
- a kind of insurance fund for exchanges, where each exchange voluntarily participates, and membership implies a certain trustworthiness. If you don't live up to expectations you are sanctioned. Fine.
- a voluntary "fractional reserve" system, where you can either have your exchange account 100% backed, or some portion of that (his suggestion 80%), then exchanges could also become bitcoin lending institutions, with your approval.
These would be voluntary systems.
What he's not proposing, is a system of "bitcoin printing" or QE or any such nonsense.
Leaving some of his pro-state intervention rhetoric aside, it's not a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
What are the specs on that wire powering the facility? Someone here surely knows.
|
|
|
|
|
What happens when the price becomes $10,000 per btc does the insurance cover then?
|
|
|
|
I think this is good news but it may be better to provide the 100 dollars to each student in a staggered format. Instead of 100 lump sum maybe 2 payments of $50, 1 at the beginning of the semester and 1 at the middle or at the start of next semester. Or 4 payments of $25. This would also protect students from getting hit hard by a large drop in price by dollar cost averaging it for them.
I heard two of the MIT Bitcoin Club guys speak at the NYC Bitcoin Center a couple months ago. They hadn't figured it out yet exactly at that time, but they are planning to do something along the lines of what you're proposing. I don't know the specifics. |
|
|
|
but "The insurance covers losses due to breaches in physical or cyber security and employee theft."
U dont want crazy karpeles bs goin on |
|
|
|
|
Only problem is whoever receives the payment has to immediately scan the QR code on the paper wallet and sweep the private key or risk fraud.
A bit easier just to scan a QR with your device in the first place.
edit: left my browser window open. What cipher_gnome said.
|
|
|
|
|
take a look at litecoin pls... like wtf are u talking
|
|
|
|
|
Any currency that is not providing a percentage to the central banks has little or no future. Sort of the same way gold was seized and simply made illegal to possess.
see wikipedia Executive_Order_6102
|
|
|
|
I heard bitcoins give you herpes.
It must give you a boner first. |
|
|
|
|
Have heard that Wikipedia has already accepted them... correct me if i'm wrong
|
|
|
|
|
Nice video. I'm not in love with image of BTC girl but authors should know that they are amazing
|
|
|
|
|
