Has anyone wargamed a 51% attack on Bitcoin? How would it go down. What defensive measures could be taken.

*edit* Ive been trying to guestimate the block rewards in the future and what ive arrived at is difficulty will go down alot. This is not good if there is a relatively large faction in the world vying to supply the reserve asset because for the cost of less than building a power plant you could 51% attack bitcoin at that point. So if a proof of stake coin tracks BTC market cap they can just wait for a few more halvings and then attack. Or if a legacy government like China wants to assert their own CBDCs they can spend a fraction of their military budget to attack bitcoin. Not cool.

Hello. I am always disgusted when i come here. You seem to not care one bit about bitcoin. Only thing you care about is when you get your next block. Well its been 6 months since segwit was released and you are still not signalling.

The fees have become exorbitant. And before you say you wont make a difference, well what does it cost you? Just signal, its better than not.

How would you feel if bitcoin lost its number 1 spot? How do you think bitcoin can attract new people and increase the value of the coin then? Miners lack of segwit signalling is pushing people into alternative crypto's because fees are getting crazy high. You will understand when bitcoin loses its no1 spot how bad you fucked up. Have a nice day.

Hey

How do you calculate taxes on alt-coins bought and sold with Bitcoin? For example if i bought 10 bitcoins worth of Monero, and monero rose 10% and i decides to sell for that extra bitcoin, how does that become taxed? Furthermore if/when i decide to sell the 11 bitcoin i now have for fiat, how might that be taxed? Thank you in advance.

Uh my first question. Why is there not a thread like this?

Hello,

Do you think pooled transactions are a possibilty? For example a wallet with superior reputation for being secure, reliable, honest, and having a significant user base... Wallet making a partnership with say coinbase and bitpay, and when users, using the webwallet, bitpay/coinbase will get an IOU instead of bitcoin, avoiding a miner fee for each tx individually. At the end of the day or week the entire ordeal could be settled in one large blockchain transactions possibly saving several BTC's in miner fees overall. If this becomes a thing, how would this affect mining in the future, when block rewards start disappearing?

hi.

is the hardware encryption on the samsung 840 series SSD's worth anything? Do anyone know if its broken or a workaround/hack have been found?

Thanks in advance

The deflation is becomming a problem due to the current nature of bitcoin. We were supposed to add decimal places, but this just doesent work. Its awkard and confusing, and there really is a need to act sooner rather than later, before the community adopts the proposed milibitcoin and microbitcoin proposals of denominations..

Im afraid there is a need to reschool us in the way we think about bitcoin. First of all, the saying there is 21 million bitcoins total is both true and false. Because these bitcoins can be divisible down to eight decimal places. This means, there is in fact 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins in total. Which is great. More than enough to go around. Or rather more than enough for a sensible pricing mechanism. More on that later.

If we want to help ourselves, and the adoption of bitcoin, we should no longer think that the smallest atomic amount is 0,00000001 but rather 1! On the other hand we should no longer be thinking than 1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin.......... It should be = 100,000,000 Bitcoin. Because that is going to change everything. First of all no currency needs 8 decimal places. It would make pricing, comparing prices and so on a pain. The more decimal places the more clutter there is going to be. Think 0,001 0,0000232 1,0000323 and so on.... Also in my opinion it does not make much sense, if one wants a currency to be widely adopted, to NOT imitate the currencies that are currently in use. These currencies that are currently in use today only have 2 decimal places. And it works great. I never said to myself, i wish the dollar had more decimal places.

would it make sense to come up with a better denomination system? atm. i think the 8 decimal places feels awkward.

i was wondering if the system could handle denominations that go by the hundreds, just like normal currency does. 100 cents to a dollar, 100 pennies to a pound etc.

i wanted to imitate the kilobyte, megabyte system, because well its computerish, as is bitcoin. problem is this system builds on denominations by the thousands. ~1000 bytes is a kilobyte, ~1000 kilobyte is a megabyte. but the names are good because people already know them and can relate to them easily.

so use the same names, but have them go by the 100's instead of 1000's because its more in line with a currency.

i made a spreadsheet where i put my current balance at the top, and then the spreadsheet worked out how many Kilobitcoin i had, how many Megabitcoin and so on. And i was pleased with the result. It turns out 1 BTC is exactly 1 Terabitcoin. Well the result was at least more pleasing than having 1,12345678 BTC in balance. Its probably too late to rework the currency...... but i dont think thats neccesary. With a little logic the backend could still work in the old way. Or have the raw balance. But up front it would be displayed in either kilobitcoin, megabitcoin or whatever depending on how many bitcoin you actually have. i think its a better system because its future proofed. i mean, we willl know today what the denominations will be down the line as the currency deflates. it will also be easier to price this way. instead of having prices of 0.000003 etc. you could just have 3 Kilobitcoin. I mean for short it could just be Kbc, or Kbc or whatever...

Even mining would feel more lucrative or what have you if the mining wallets etc. was displayed in another denomination than 0,000334 because it doesent feel rewarding to mine 0,00434. If however the denomination was changed, you might still only be mining 0,003434 but it would display 3434 Kbc instead which just changes the whole game imo. The currency itself would be more lovable, if you can say that about a currency...... the 0,0003434 denominations makes it look like a freak child. Even the proposed uBTC and mBTC dont feel right as they dont abide by any rule set really, and the amount of decimal places they represent will be harder to memorize/remember. With the Kilobitcoin/Megabitcoin denomination set you only have to remember they work the same way as with file sizes, but they increase by the 100's not the 1000's. you would always know that 1 Kilobitcoin is 100 bitcoin(which is currently called satoshis) and 1 Megabitcoin is 100 kilobitcoin. You could have various exhanges spring up. Ones that specialised in kilobitcoins, ones that specialised in Terabitcoins and so on. Not everyone can afford to trade a whole BTC so even today this system could make sense. There is alot more to it, to get it working in practice, but what do you think about the inital idea?

hello

ive been very excited for bitcoin, and i finally got a hold of my first coins. but i do not enjoy handling them at all. the 8 decimal places thing really takes away from the feel of the currency. i was wondering what would happen if clients, wallets, etc. just stopped showing the decimal. so that you just had x units... right now i have 10.995 BTC. If the decimal was removed i would have 1,099,500,000 units. which i feel would be so much better. the exchanges could then come up with their denominations. for example on mtgox the standard could be 100,000,000 units each trade. I mean they would bundle 100,000,000 units together and track the price like that. they could call this bundle or unit the GOX DOLLAR or GOX COIN or whatever. It would just mean that the mtgox price reflects 100,000,000 units of bitcoin. As time goes by, if bitcoin gets any momentum, one BTC is probably gonna be worth thousands of dollars anyway and thus ineligable to be traded on the exchanges due to their cost, and the exchanges would have to come up with a new denomination then.

hi.

is it going to take longer and longer for confirmations to appear, as the difficulty in mining rises? If so, what consequences are this going to have on the bitcoin economy?

hello,

whenever i handle bitcoins it just doesent feel right. when i see my balance it just doesent feel right. 0,53434734 on my phone and now 10,9999995 on my secured wallet. 10,999995 because i didnt know the transaction fee was taken after the amount you send (but it makes sense so thats all well and good) but now i have an ugly number there as well. what i really wanted was to have precicley 11. Anyway, i was wondering if it was possible to change the denominations to make them more user friendly, if not look better or have a better feel.

it seems there is a maximum of 2,099,999,997,690,000 (just over 2 quadrillion) atomic units of bitcoin. The way we represent the smallest unit today is with 0.00000001. and i think thats a little awkward. Why not have the smallest unit be 1, and then the larger units be several of those. For sake of simplicity im gonna call the smallest unit bitcoin. So 1 BTC would be 100,000,000 bitcoin. Please correct me if wrong, but in this case what i had in my wallet would be the equivalent of 1,099,999,500 bitcoin. That is basically as simple a represenation we can get. But having a balance of 1,099,999,500 seems just as crazy as having a balance of 10,999995, although it has a better feel. However it becomes a nightmare trying to price anything in bitcoin if it there werent simpler denominations. Imagine coffée costing 100.000 bitcoin. Anyway the early developers of computers etc. had a similar problem. As the size of their files increased so did the length of numbers to display the size so they invented kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte and so on. And i think bitcoin can draw some inspiration from that:)

But first, even tho bitcoin is a competitor to fiat. I mean, most bitcoiners dont really like fiat, but we can still learn from it. Most modern fiat currencies are built up in hundreds. Or their denominations are in hundreds. For example 100 cent to a dollar, 100 pennies to a pound, 100 cent to a euro. This is pretty neat, because it makes it easy to understand and compare a price while still giving sufficient scalability for the seller etc.

Moving on. So i think bitcoin should try to imitate this. Bitcoin denominations should be by the 100's, but since the numbers are so big atm. 1 denomination is not enough. So back to the programmers and the file size problem... Lets call the smallest amount of bitcoin, bitcoin. Then when you 100 of those, you would have a kilobitcoin. (i know in the file size world you would need ~1000, but thats too much for a currency, imagine if you bought something and it cost 1 dollar and 993 cent...) 1 bitcoin is 1 bitcoin, 100 bitcoin is 100 bitcoin OR 1kilobitcoin. 100 kilobitcoin would be 1 megabitcoin, 100 megabitcoin would be 1 gigabitcoin so on so forth. I dont know what you think about this? Im pretty sure it would be possible, for all that is required is to change the way software displays the amounts to the end user while still adhering to the "proper" methods underneath (the 0,00000343 one etc.).

[Satoshis]

hello,

is it possible to change the denominations so they have a better feel?

atm we have 1 bitcoin, and then we work the way down, getting odd numbers with decimal places which just feels wrong and looks awkard.

1 BTC        = BitCoin = 100,000,000 Satoshis
0.01 BTC     = 1 cB or 1 cBTC (bitcent)
0.001 BTC    = 1 mB or 1 mBTC (bitmill)
0.000001 BTC = 1 μB or 1 μBTC (mike)
0.00000001 BTC = Satoshi

Its something i copy pasted from another thread, but thats how the standard more or less is today, but is it possible to agree on some changes so it becomes

1 BTC = 100,000,000 Bitcoin
1 Bitcoin = The smallest atomic amount

Then we actually work our way UP from there. For example atm. i have 11 bitcoin. Thats in reality 1.100.000.000 Satoshis. Id prefer if the smallest amount was called Bitcoin instead of satoshis. Then we can call the currect Bitcoin or BTC a satoshi. It will ultimately become very valuable if bitcoin becomes successful, and thus its a greater honor. It wont be used as much. 1 BTC would probably eventually have the equivalent value of a goldbar, so i think it makes sense to call the current BTC Satoshi. If we called the smallest atomic amount possible then or rather the minimum amount you could send BITCOIN, then the system becomes more transparent and pricing easier. We could then let the market decide on proper denominations. For example 1 Kilobitcoin(kBc), would be 1000 of the smallest atomic amount. One Megabitcoin (mBc) would be 1 million of the smallest atomic amount. in fact in this system what we call a BTC today would be 100 kBc. I personally feel these kinds of denominations makes having bitcoin and mining it much more rewarding, because having 0,03435 bitcoin feels awkward, and mining 0,004343 bitcoin also feels awkward so on so forth. of course changing the denominations or names wont impact the actual value underlying but the currency itself would just have a better feel imo, which ultimately adds to its strength.