Such schemes are asshole-creation-machines.
Once you participate you have a vested interest to convince others to join, knowing that they will have to do the same or lose their money.
I strongly recommend you not to participate in such things, because even if you make money, you might end up losing good friends (or at least gain massive bad karma for trying it on random people in the internet).
This is the right way of reasoning in a perspective of development and general diffusion and acceptance of bitcoin There are people who treat Bitcoin the same way, so you are partially right. Obviously you have a vested interest as well and there are quite some that go way overboard with advertising it. There is one difference though. Bitcoin could work fine, if the user amount stays the same for a long time (although the current inflation is still a bit too high, so it currently does need a bit of growth). Ponzis have to grow exponentially forever (which is impossible) or they will collapse. |
|
|
|
Den Einfluß der Hashrate würde ich als gering erachten, durch die Anpassung der Difficulty werden ja nicht mehr als 50 Bitcoins in 10 Minuten erzeugt.
Doch schon, wenn die Hashrate die ganze Zeit um 10% steigt, werden 10% mehr Blöcke gefunden und Bitcoins erzeugt. Der absolute Zahlenwert spielt dabei allerdings keine Rolle, nur der relative zur letzten Anpassung. (das Reward Halving wird dementsprechend schneller erreicht) deswegen gibts ja alle paar tage ein anpassung der diffi Zumindest solange der Hashratechart die Form einer Exponentialkurve hat, werden dabei trotzdem einiges mehr an Bitcoins erzeugt als 3600 pro Tag. http://bitcoindifficulty.com/Aber ja, Anpassungen finden auch schneller statt. |
|
|
|
Den Einfluß der Hashrate würde ich als gering erachten, durch die Anpassung der Difficulty werden ja nicht mehr als 50 Bitcoins in 10 Minuten erzeugt.
Doch schon, wenn die Hashrate die ganze Zeit um 10% steigt, werden 10% mehr Blöcke gefunden und Bitcoins erzeugt. Der absolute Zahlenwert spielt dabei allerdings keine Rolle, nur der relative zur letzten Anpassung. (das Reward Halving wird dementsprechend schneller erreicht) |
|
|
|
Danke, interessanter Artikel. Ich finde es faszinierend wie solche Gerüchte immer in den Umlauf kommen. Noch viel schwieriger ist das Ganze, wenn da nen wahrer Kern drin sein kann, aber trotzdem beide Seiten viel hinzudichten wie z.B. bei der Klimadebatte. Um es mal aufs Bitcoin-Thema zu bringen: Ich lese immernoch Artikel in denen steht, dass Thailand Bitcoin verboten hat. Kaum totzukriegen solche Gerüchte. |
|
|
|
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.
Sorry, but this is false. example: A trade can also happen, because you think it's a win for you, but in reality it isn't. (e.g. a retiree that buys a useless insurance) Or because you lack other options. Your sentence is wishful thinking, but reality isn't like that. |
|
|
|
Why does everyone use Ghash?
Probably because it's the easiest and/or most profitable to use. Or because people just don't know better alternatives. |
|
|
|
In a decentralized environment like Bitcoin the most important factor is the incentive for the participants. If you want to solve any problem, it's best to solve it that way.I own a few Bitcoins, so I have an incentive to contribute something and collected the most interesting posts of the Ghash discussion. So whats the problem with Ghash having over 51%? I doubt they would do anything malicious as well. But that's not the point. The point is that Bitcoin is trustless, yet I have to trust them. Why do people want to use Ghash instead of other pools? [...]
Ghash.io remains the best pool, and no other pool comes close.
To have a real long-term solution there need to be other pools that offer the same or better benefits as ghash.io:
Very low fees
Share the transaction fee income between miners (some pools keep it to themselves, which is ridiculous)
Clear stats on your hashrate and income
Automatic payout, preferably split between shareholders
API support to check your hashrate from mobile or browser plugin
Reliablilty
Total pool hashing power (to decrease variance)
Merged mining (=free extra money) preferably with automatic cash out or even automatic exchange to bitcoin GHash understands marketing and presentation. They also offer the most merge mined coins (BTC,IXC,DVC,NMC). Finally they tie in a hashrate trading platform (CEX.io) allowing anyone to get in/out of mining as they please. The people behind GHash are to mining as Mark Zuckerberg is to social networking. If there wasn't a 50% concern they would have over 90% of the pooled network by now I'm sure. Slush's Pool was the first pool, now they have less than 5%. View Slush's page here, now view GHash.io. Any questions? Ok, but why don't people switch to p2pool? Well, there's a few downsides to using p2pool.
The first is inconsistency. If you have low hashing power, it may take you forever to even find a share. For example, mining on p2pool with an old 10 GH/s ASIC isn't very reliable.
The second is lack of tracking services. While some mining pools offer all sorts of worker statistics, p2pool can't really provide much due to shares being hard to find and it being decentralized. So you'll need to use another program to monitor your miners when away, instead of just logging onto the pool website.
The last is that it can be a bit more difficult to set up than a regular pool. You need to run a full node, which takes up a lot of bandwidth and about 20 GB(and growing) of storage. So if you have limited data, it may not be for you.
There are also advantages to using p2pool:
helping decentralize the network
Because there's no central operator, there's no risk of the pool getting hacked and your balance being lost
No fees!
Why do they offer so much more than other pools? [...]At no point in GHash's history have they halted registrations to prevent a 51% hash rate. The only pool to ever do so was BTC Guild, and it did so at 45% of the network. And the difference there was 100% of BTC Guild's hash rate was public, no private mining farm. GHash.io continues to control a private mining farm of 40-50% of it's pool speed if not more, while trying to get more people to join their pool which has 0 economic sense behind it unless they plan on double spending or stealing from users (they're literally throwing money away to operate a public pool, spending time supporting people, and paying for servers, and gaining NOTHING from it). I don't know if that's true, but how do they manage to upkeep their offer? Maybe they just betting that mining isn't going to give back the full investment, so their share is the part they don't have to pay out. Wouldn't miners change anyway, for the good of Bitcoin? [...]such nebulous incentives don't work in reality. For example, endangering long-term viability of fish stock never stopped overfishing and destroying fisheries, because it requires agreement of everybody, and it takes one bad actor to for the pact to fall apart. It's very profitable to not follow the pact to not overfish (especially if everyone else is following it), so default equilibrium is "fish as much as you can". You simply can't trust your competitors to not take advantage of you. [...] In theory, we as Bitcoin "shareholders" should have incentive to create a solution. This would mean creating an offer on par with that of Ghash and avertising it, so miners would have an incentive to change. Also it seems like better documentation / an easy step guide is needed: p2pool documentation is horribly confusing, incomplete, unstructured and misleading, its causing misunderstandings, most people don't even get what it actually is and there is no place to go to read about it and understand it, all the websites of the public nodes are written for people who already have an intimate knowledge about the structure of the whole p2pool network and most websites trying to give a general overview also fail and are not targeted at the average miner either, they are written in a horribly convoluted unstructured style and after reading them you usually know less than before, even if you have an above average IQ.
Your posting above is yet another proof of that.
Documentation needs to improve.
Another solution might be a protocol change that changes the incentive. (sry for putting out a 3rd thread about this, I hope the compilation is interesting enough)
|
|
|
|
|
Great example of the worst type of regulation, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem, but hinders poor people instead.
The gold market is less volatile because the market cap is way higher, not because you have to pay more for small amounts.
In physical stuff it does make at least a bit of sense, because it requires more effort to do several small tradings instead of a big one.
Btw: Wouldn't the opposite reduce volatility? Banning the selling / buying of big amounts of BTC? So nobody could dump 2000 BTC in a day.
(Obviously this is in no way practical or desirable)
|
|
|
|
Birdy, it's all there for those that want and desire to know the facts. As for you telling me to go to sleep now? Who the heck do you think you are kid?
Or is that just another old fool or shill attempting in vain to keep being a parasite and prey off everyone else? Your words don't ring sincere, at all. And since your a very slow reader as well as a very lame duck I suggest you do a lot of research before hopping in here barking orders that you cannot and wont be able to back up.
It was 1 a.m. and I had to go to work next day, so I didn't really read your big wall of text and just skimmed over it, wanting to give it a proper treatment today. You don't tell me what to do. No one does. I am my own boss.
I didn't tell you to go to sleep, I told you I was too tired to read this and I was going to sleep. But Birdy your welcome to go suck up to your corporate or government masters. Have fun!
[...]
And some even tell people to 'go to sleep' if they don't care for what is stated.
In return I say to Birdy: off you go, go be an obedient worker slave and fool.
After all your the one barking and acting like an idiot.
Sucks to be a Bankster like you? knowing your end is near eh?
Yea, after thinking about it a moment I figure your an obvious low level banking employee.
Must suck to make so little and do the devils work for such evil.
Get used to that Birdy. And soon to be Jail bird Birdy?
As for the 'long wall of words' or whatever. You must be a bird brain birdy?
Now off to sleep birdy, you still got scams to perpetrate right? Sleep well... Wow you misread one sentence (even worse: the post contained praise for your arguments) and start a hate-tirade, what the heck is wrong with you? Drawing ridiculous conclusions from nowhere. On a side note: No, I'm not in banking business. |
|
|
|
If someone comes up with a good or service that is better than anything else sure. If they try to inflate the price other people will come up with a cheaper version forcing the first group to drop prices or go out of business. Monopolies are problems when states interfere with markets.
What if the monopoly is supply-based? E.g. I own most of the watersources in a region. Or I own all the roads surrounding area x, so everybody has to pass through them? And it doesn't end there. There are a lot of sectors where new companies are at heavy disadvantage. E.g. industries that require a lot of infrastructure like internet providers or energy companies. Not all of them can be beaten by competition. @Slingshot: It's too late to read such a wall of text, going to sleep now.But I've skimmed over it though and there are some good arguments in it. |
|
|
|
Especially stuff which gets worse in capitalistic systems (e.g. a widening social gap between rich and poor) and stuff nobody feels responsible for (e.g. some environmental problems) needs to be solved in some way.
That kind of stuff happens with crony capitalism. The big players get bailouts and the average people lose their homes. A truly free market would solve more social problems than it would create. Yes, but I'm certain it is a problem in all forms of capitalism. Social capitalism is actually supposed to lessen those effects, however the politcians might call our system this name, but often they are actually doing the opposite - like with those bailouts. Does your truly free market allow monopolies? |
|
|
|
|
Especially stuff which gets worse in capitalistic systems (e.g. a widening social gap between rich and poor) and stuff nobody feels responsible for (e.g. some environmental problems) needs to be solved in some way.
|
|
|
|
There will be ways to maintain order. Maybe neighborhoods band together to hire peace officers etc. This idea that civilization can't exist without central authority is simply wrong. Civilized people create governments, governments do not civilize people.
In the same way it's wrong to assume that every government has to be bad, just because our current ones are kinda bad. Maybe there are ways to manage a society in a decentralised way, just like Bitcoin is a way to solve some currency problems in a decentralized way. I haven't heard many convincing ideas in that regard though and it isn't really helping that quite some liberatarians/anarchists use the word "free market" like it's some magic that will automatically cure all problems. |
|
|
|
Anarchy > Capitalism. Anarchy means without hierarchy. It means no man belongs to any other, to any degree without consent. It also means you economically illiterate communists and socialists can all band together in shared misery... while us capitalists will associate and contract without whomever we choose as well.
But who will keep people from killing each other? Some kind of basic order is necessary. The right to life has to be enforced by someone. People who don't want to get killed stop themselves from killing other people. In preventing a "bad guy" from killing a "good guy", the government also stops good guys from killing bad guys right back. You want to know how a stateless court would handle the rape of my daughter? They wouldn't. I'd have killed the fucker first. I probably can imagine over 1000 ways of this system going totally wrong. If you are ever going to found a state with an anarchy-like system, you better have a more solid plan than "we just kill the bad guys" up your sleeves. Otherwise, please remind me to stay very far away from that place, there is going to be a bloodbath. |
|
|
|
Finally, the last few posts kept using the word "greed" like it a bad thing. It's not. To quote Gordon Gecko, "Greed is good. Greed works." Greed is each person looking out for themselves and striving to accumulate as much wealth as possible. This is what drives innovation and industry. I want everybody who is capable of achieving stellar success to get there, because they lift up average people like me in the process. Capitalism protects me from being abused or forced to work for someone else. The word greed is bad by defintion, it's wanting something so badly that the negative consequences outdo all positives. If you are searching for the good word, it's "ambition". Ok, enough of unimportant blather, here is where the main problem stems from: Capitalism protects me from being abused or forced to work for someone else. Sorry to break this news to you, but it doesn't. Unless you think dieing by starvation is acceptable as alternative. There are others forces than those by persons. So you can talk about "non aggression principle" all day, the fact is you are completely ignoring those other forces even when they can be just as cruel as the "aggression" you hate so much. |
|
|
|
"When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else." The answer is you will get a job and earn some bitcoin and buy it from somebody who wishes to sell it. You may inherit it as well. There is nothing wrong with inherited wealth. I don't fret that men like BIll Gates and Warren Buffet have loads of money. They have made our lives infinitely better through their innovations and skill. Their massive wealth was well earned and I admire them for it. But wait a few generations and see how much wealth the heirs of Bill Gates will have. I predict very little. It will get spread out through the population because few men create that kind of wealth and even fewer can keep it. Have many Kennedys and Rockefellers have the same power and money their ancestors had? None that I know of.
Sadly it doesn't work out that way, it would be great if it would. But the rich are usually getting richer or at least stay rich. They have the wealth to give their children good education, they have the connections to lead them to a good job. Most of the poor never have a real chance no matter how hard they try. Of course there are execptions where someone makes it from zero to hero or falls down from wealth, but it isn't the norm. man's natural rights There are no natural rights, only rights we make up ourselves as humanity. |
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of talk on these boards bashing capitalism. I want to remind people that capitalism is the only moral system of government and it has never been tried completely.
When the US was formed, capitalism flourished briefly. Then, as usual, people in power started placing restrictions on citizens and began the immoral taxation to pay for any number of programs. A central bank was even formed in the early 1800s that lasted for several years. Despite the slow encroachment of oppressive government, the US lead the world in innovation and wealth accumulation during the 1800s and most of the 1900s. This was all due to capitalism and limited government.
As a liberterian, a TRUE liberterian, I see the immortality of taxes. I recognize the evil of using government force to take the product of a citizen's effort and use it for….anything. ANYTHING. The only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, thereby increasing freedom. Forcibly taking wealth from somebody and giving to somebody else is wrong/immoral/evil.
Bitcoin thankfully takes the power of money creation out of the hands of governments which is why there are so many libertarians on this forum.
I could talk about morality and philosophy all day long but this probably isn't the right forum. I just wanted to point out that true unrestricted capitalism is the moral engine that drives wealth creation in this world.
Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint, it doesn't say anymore than "money is power, try to achieve wealth by doing stuff". It doesn't care if you achieve it by exploiting others or by being a great inventor. But people do. "Then, as usual, people in power started placing restrictions on citizens[...]" , you are even saying it yourself. Guess what will happen then. The neutral capitalism will be shifted by those who gained power first. This will lead to some form of government/restrictions for other people. -> true unrestricted capitalism can only exist for a short timeframe. The only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, thereby increasing freedom. By guarding a right for someone, you are also restricting someone else. Think about this sentence: When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else. |
|
|
|
|
Die einzige machbare Lösung wäre wohl, dass der Automat selber in der Lage ist Paperwallets zu generieren und auszudrucken (wie es einige Automaten können).
Das Gesetz ist an für sich völlig Banane für Bitcoins, ungefähr so sinnvoll wie wenn ein Fiatautomat prüfen müsste, ob der erste Geldbeutel, dass es nach dem Auszahlen berührt auch wirklich dem Kontoinhaber gehört. Typisches Beispiel für altes Gesetz muss an neues Technik angepasst werden.
|
|
|
|
Leute ihr habt da einen kleinen Logik Fehler.
Was für ein Vorteil hat Mt.Gox wenn sie die Coins für 100$ oder weniger auf ihrer eigenen Börse nachkaufen können?
GAR KEINEN
Dadurch besitzt Mt.Gox dannach ja genauso wenig Coins. Denn die Coins die sie auf ihrer eigenen Börse für 100$ kaufen existieren ja nur virtuell auf ihrem Server wenn sie bereits geklaut wurden...
Versteht ihr das?
Durch die selbst gekauften Coins kann Mt.Gox dann auch keine User auszahlen- weil diese Coins nur in ihrer SQL Datenbank existieren und mehr nicht..
Genauso haben sie nichts in der Hand von ihren 700 BTC an Handelsgebühren die sie pro Tag einnehmen.
Du übersiehst dabei einen wichtigen Punkt: Sie haben dann weniger Leute denen sie noch Btc auszahlen müssen. Wenn die Reserve 0 ist, hilft das natürlich nicht viel. Aber wenn sagen wir nur die Hälfte des Geldes in kaffeehaltige Eisgetränke gewandert ist, sieht das anders aus. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
