 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Any bitcoin enthusiast and supporter might always say "There is a big problem with Paypal - the charge back issue". While Paypal stays the world's largest merchant supported virtual payment network. Merchants are widely supporting it. Bitcoin has the major advantage of the non-reversal of the payment. So, it is better than Paypal. RBF may alter this to some extent. But still even if RBF is adapted, wide support of bitcoin won't stop. However, I don't want RBF.
I agree. While RBF may offer some convenience, the ultimate cost of being able to double spend this easily (and especially with the scenario outlined in the article regarding non-chronological processing) not only compromises the security that Bitcoin was founded on, but introduces a host of new problems (i.e. network division/fragmentation). |
|
|
|
I have done several bitcoin trades with local bitcoin. I bought bitcoin from localbitcoins. I paid money through bank transfer and get the bitcoin later. No problem at all.
Just going on localbitcoins, finding a buyer or seller there, and then meeting with them is not as problematic as setting up an account to buy/sell and then advertising there. It is the advertising your willingness to buy/sell that makes it look like a business and may require a license. Just using the localbitcoins service to locate a buyer/seller who has an ad on the site does not make you look like a business. I wonder how risky is that in other countries where the laws are not that strict. tbh you and a couple of other cases are the only ons I heard of having problems. Did lbtc ever result into people having problems in other countries ? If you're in the US, sometimes even the state you're in can make a difference. All in all, the problems most people run into are regional. |
|
|
|
|
Using it like a savings account. Lawnmower puts my spare change to BTC, and I check up on my returns every once in a while.
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's insane. What a strange place this world is. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2 Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well. Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another. "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc... I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why? If you click back on my main link, just browse all the way down for the comments. Looks like they loved that move. But Grist always has selectively deleted posts to drive away people who didn't like their attitude and worldview. Grist, as I recall, the editor there is the guy that invented the phrase "Denier" as applied to climate skeptics. Bunch of nutjobs. Example from their postings...no, it isn't the Onion. The only genocide here, active as well as passive, is that caused by the increased floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, storms, social chaos and other effects of global climate catastrophe. Those few rich people causing the vast majority of it are guilty of crimes against humanity and the Earth, and all you denying delayalists are guilty of conspiracy and aiding and abetting felons. In some places the felony murder charge is applicable. That's 150,000 to 300,000 counts a year; a lot of prison time for you folks. I'd like to help you avoid that but you have to cooperate. Stop spreading delayalist lies, go through the Truth and Reconciliation Committee process when you get the chance and help solve the problem, starting now.
Solar, wind, efficiency, reforestation, local organic low-meat permaculture are the answers. Pick one or more and learn about it so you help.While I can see the point behind the statement, taking it literally obviously wouldn't make any sense. That would be like penalizing anyone who has bought processed meat for the inhumane treatment of animals - yes, it happens - no, you're not responsible for it (at least not in a macroscopic sense). |
|
|
|
|
For the CryptoNote protocol, are those hardcoded nodes DNS nodes or actual p2p nodes?
|
|
|
|
Which Malware Scanner did you use? I compiled the qt myself on a clean windows wm. Seems fishy to me, want to show what you changed in the source to make it "not detected"? |
|
|
|
What are your thoughts?
This will go over here about as well as a 10MB block. Haha, you seem to be right. Plenty of views. No replies. |
|
|
|
I've heard the claim that infinite demand for money allows increased supply without triggering inflation, but it's usually used to justify money printing, so that's an interesting idea. However, both sides miss something important when using this argument: The supply of goods and services doesn't change as a result of a higher money supply (although a higher money supply can temporarily drive increased production). The more dollars there are chasing limited goods, the less it is worth.
It doesn't matter if society realizes this is happening, they do understand on some level or another that buying power is falling when prices rise.
You can't really blame banks here though. Fractional reserve banking is, as you say, a natural phenomenon, but, at least so long as there are reserve requirements (either by fiat or necessity--to maintain solvency), private banks can only *multiply* real currency, not mint infinite new currency. The amount of real currency created by central banks directly controls the money supply, therefore, central banks *over the long term* are always to blame for inflation.
This, right here. The money supply is insulated from the supply of goods, those are generally determined by disposable income as per inferior goods and what not. Overall, money supply economics are far more complex than a few theories can describe, simply because there's so many factors to take into account. It's constantly changing, unpredictable, and a clusterfck at best. |
|
|
|
If alien come to earth, they will be shocked by the fact that human on earth will starve just because money printer is not working
Or maybe because it's printing too much. Now, how could we live without money? If I go to a restaurant without money, how do I pay? Or would they feed me for free? Free beer, too? There exists a need for regulation and centralization; the Libertarian's wet dream of decentralized EVERYTHING would fail because it would require people to act not on impulse, but for the greater good. That borders on socialism, no? And look how successful that's been in history. |
|
|
|
Hi All! We just upgraded our cooling: check it out.   That looks absolutely incredible. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
Guys... clearly you should start aiming for making VGX, a Vegetacoin-only exchange.  |
|
|
|
|
Why is this suspicious? I'm curious, as it just seems to be a promotion of sorts.
|
|
|
|
|
I was talking to a friend of mine who is an economics major, and we had some conflicting ideas about this.
Let's say there is a crypto that has a fixed size of 20 million coins, and that it linearly increases in network hash rate.
This would mean that the difficulty increases at a similar rate. With that being said, to stabilize the coin's emission, would it make more sense to:
* Lower the reward when the hash rate is low
* Decreases rate of emission, stabilizing price of coin (as there is less being generated, pushing back date until all coins are mined)
* Short term stabilization, because as soon as the hash rate increases, the reward will go up (causing rate of emission to increase, devaluing currency)
OR
* Raise the reward when the hash rate is low
* Thereby incentivizing new miners to come and mine and stabilize hash rate
* More miners = more difficulty = more value of coin
* Does not stabilize price, because if reward decreases with higher hash rates, miners will have less of an incentive
* Long run: can possibly hurt price because, like most coins, is not profitable unless difficulty is low
I obviously argued for the first, because if a coin with that structure is added to a multi pool, or profit-switching pool, it will maintain being profitable (via jacking up rewards in relation to difficulty).
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Doesn't look half-bad. I'm more of a flat-icon-style kinda guy though, go figure. |
|
|
|
Why would you use oil as the liquid though? Why not water? It's free, and has better heat capacitance.
It could be as easy as the fact that the units don't exist. Ooh! That's a zinger right there. I'll be pretty open to paying via PayPal if that's an option, though. God knows when I was a seller using it, the buyers always got their way. Even if it's a scam, at worst I'll get my money back, which is all I really care about. If I do get a working product that's just a bonus. |
|
|
|
As obvious satire, this actually makes me think about how often people try to create elaborate scams through crypto.  |
|
|
|
|
