This.

D-Wave so called "quantum computers" do not use the quantum entanglement property, thus they can't break public key cryptography.

They call them "quantum" because they use atoms for computation - that's all.

Don't get confused by their marketing team who are obviously taking advantage of the terminology, perhaps to attract naive investors?

The transaction size is 1160 bytes. The price per 1000 bytes is 0.0005 BTC. Shouldn't you have paid 0.001 BTC fee for this transaction?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that, above all, we must maintain bitcoins decentralized nature. That means we should let miners price transactions.

At the end of the day, if a miner accepts a transaction in a block, he agrees to basically store it forever on his hardware. A transaction would therefore have a storage cost. It also has a computational cost as validation might be required in the future when spending outputs of this transaction.

Therefore, I strongly believe that, instead of finding static solutions to transaction costs, we must enable miners with tools to price them correctly. This is the only way we will see the light in a bumpy, uncertain and highly dynamic market environment. Good pricing competition should help us find an equilibrium.

If they don't do it already, miners need to start operating more like businesses. They need to crunch the number and understand the relationship between various transaction parameters and their cost. They need to do that for their own sake as they will need to host these transactions pretty much forever. They also need tools to tweak pricing quickly and dynamically as market forces change.

Under such assumptions, the current transaction dust we are experiencing should be reduced. My prediction is that if miners acted more as rational market players, they would require much higher fees for very small and young transactions. If the transaction is so small that it makes no economical sense to spend it, it should be priced accordingly. It will most likely be impossible to prune it and will require storage in UTXO memory. Some miners might also decide to drop them entirely. This is entirely up to them.

So how does the landscape look today? Are miners sufficiently empowered to dynamically change their pricing policies?

Grant proposals from the Bitcoin Foundation have just been published:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/

If I can help in any way with the Bitcoin TestNet Faucet, I would love to be of assistance. Don't hesitate to contact me, I've got a lot of time on my hands.

You can check out what we have already: live faucet and github code in the original post.

Cheers!

Hi, welcome to the board.

This topic has been heavily discussed already throughout the forum. Loosing bitcoins is not an issue as they are highly fungible. Today they can be divided up to 8 decimal places ( 0.00000001 BTC = 1 satoshi ). If the need arises in the future, we can modify the protocol to allow for even more decimal places.

Once you understand this concept, you realize that the number of bitcoins in circulation doesn't really matter and is only a matter of convention:

21 000 000 BTC
21 000 000 000 mBTC
21 000 000 000 000 uBTC
2 100 000 000 000 000 satoshis

And hypothetically, if we increase the number of decimal places to 16 in the future, we would have:

210 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 units

So even if all the bitcoins except 1 are lost, you can still run a world economy on it as long as it is fungible enough ( you set enough decimal places in the protocol ).

I'm trying to get some work done! I've been extremely unproductive these past 2 days

Thanks for your support! It's very much appreciated 

Bump for a few weeks of smooth operation 

People are running “automated faucet depletion scripts” so I had to tighten the withdrawal rates a bit. Sorry for all the honest people out there. But you should be fine with the current limits. Drop me a message if you need more!

Bulls have bigger balls!

I'm not so sure about the bears in here ...

I just received an OKPAY newsletter containing some pretty good news:


https://www.okpay.com/en/services/fees-e-currency.html

Looks good to me!

Very unlikely. There's only 10M Bitcoins out there and they are getting scarcer by the day. More and more businesses and users are joining the ecosystem. Even a modest drop to 25 or perhaps 20 will trigger buying pressure by many investors. I think the Bitcoin economy has outgrown single digit prices and we're not going back there unless the fundamentals of the system itself are shattered.

Disruptive technologies like Bitcoin tend to have exponential user adoption rates which would translate in a proportional increase in price. You can't have an exponential user adoption rate and expect the price to be stable. That just doesn't add up. I believe we are at the very start of the adoption curve, which will take a few years ( perhaps between 5 and 10 years ) to reach the whole population.

Sir! Yes Sir! Right away Sir!  

Edit: Great work by the way!

How about Perl? It might be loosing a bit in popularity recently but it's still a very powerful and expressive language, arguably more so than many others.

Guys, don't get me wrong, but I'm tired of reading these posts.

Please take a cryptography class for example @ http://coursera.org so you can post with some perspective on the matter.

Precious metals might be scarce on earth, but they are not scarce in space.

If we start mining asteroids, have fun watching the precious metal prices crash!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/401227.stm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold

In case you didn't read that correctly, thats 20'000'000'000 tonnes in 1 asteroid versus 171'300 tonnes every mined in human history.

All of a sudden, Bitcoins start to make a lot of sense

Technical analysis is based on one assumption:  that there exists time-correlations in market prices.

If someone manages to formally prove the existence of these correlations, that would settle it for me.

I've seen very complex attempts at extracting these correlations, through artificial intelligence algorithms such as high-dimensional support vector methods. These algorithms can find extremely complex correlations in the data that would be very hard for us humans to grasp, or completely unintuitive. If these methods fail at detecting correlations, I have a hard time with the credibility of "toy functions" used in classical TA.

My 2 bitcents. I could be completely wrong and thats fine.

(note: finding correlations amounts to predicting the price better than random. Of course, random can be right sometimes, but it's predictive power is useless.)

You double your bet every time you loose.

What people don't realize, is that doubling your bets is equivalent to an exponential increase. Here's a pic to help you grasp the exponential feeling:


( I don't own copyrights on this image )

It's not sustainable. You run out of cash very quickly.

Additionally, if you are into statistics, you can calculate the expectation of this strategy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

The expectation value will be below 0.5, so the house will still have the advantage.

By the way, you will never find a casino game where the expectation value is over 0.5. The house would be loosing money over time in such a case.

Cheers!

I skimmed quickly through the patents filed by these gentlemen and I have yet to see one that somehow relates to bitcoin. Journalists are quick to arrive to the conclusion: "It sounds technical so it must be related to Bitcoin!" Maybe I'm wrong and didn't look close enough.

Edit: I did not see the thread about spending your own change before posting this. Sorry!

Thanks for the excellent work! I really enjoy using this client.

It would be nice however to be able to spend your own change. I'm using version 2.39_test right now on a galaxy nexus ( google phone ) with android version 4.1.1. I sent 50 BTC (testnet) in one transaction to my android wallet. I can only send 1 transaction per block right now because all of my bitcoins are blocked as change Of course, I can send multiple transactions to my android wallet so that not all coins are used as inputs of a new transaction.

I know this issue has been raised here, just adding my own experience. Otherwise, great job!

Cheers,