 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
that's one of the beauties of satoshi not being around: opponents can't assassinate his character. look, satoshi is guilty by association, so they say. good luck with trying to discredit the SN. it's doubtful he left enough (block)chain for people to metaphorically hang him.
|
|
|
|
|
it's certainly true the more people use bitcoins the better it will do. but it doesn't have to be giving it to causes (but it certainly could be). buying anything helps establish it as a money (i.e. the most used medium of exchange/store of value/unit of account in an economy).
anyone who is willing to risk and invest has the opportunity to make a profit. or if they malinvest, a lose. really it's up to each person to decide how much risk they are willing to take. personally, i like the risk, if the potential reward is there.
|
|
|
|
the canadian government has already started: with mint chip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintChipbut whatever the government try to implement, it's going to be inferior to what the free market can produce. and of course, they only want it so it can be used as a further form of control. the narrative will be: it helps in the war against pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers. |
|
|
|
Or they could just muster the resources and do it anyway, with no warning.
No unusual mining power growth can escape people's attention, you get the most paranoid bunch of guys in the world here, why bother with additional resources? And it's not even relevant, any prevention against 51% attack has to be implemented such that it's effective against all possible 51% attacks(which you have to do anyway if you can), to just target a particular group of people is ridiculous. They would do it as closely together as possible. They're unlikely to connect one machine at a time to the network. It's an example of a nation. But yes, it could be any nation with enough resources. Exactly, so it's not related to how many nodes are, or even how much hashpower is in China, right? Not to say a 51% attack can only be pulled off by a single node with 51% of the hashing power, not a lot of nodes combined together. So what OP said is not relevant. The OP asked a question. So it's as relevant as a question can be. What I said is relevant: "A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed." Every word in your sentence I agree except the "significant risk" part. OP asked the wrong question because 51% attack has hardly anything to do with the total hashpower within a nation's border. Fair enough. We have different ideas of the risk. I obviously agree with my own statement. |
|
|
|
Or they could just muster the resources and do it anyway, with no warning.
No unusual mining power growth can escape people's attention, you get the most paranoid bunch of guys in the world here, why bother with additional resources? And it's not even relevant, any prevention against 51% attack has to be implemented such that it's effective against all possible 51% attacks(which you have to do anyway if you can), to just target a particular group of people is ridiculous. They would do it as closely together as possible. They're unlikely to connect one machine at a time to the network. It's an example of a nation. But yes, it could be any nation with enough resources. Exactly, so it's not related to how many nodes are, or even how much hashpower is in China, right? Not to say a 51% attack can only be pulled off by a single node with 51% of the hashing power, not a lot of nodes combined together. So what OP said is not relevant. The OP asked a question. So it's as relevant as a question can be. What I said is relevant: "A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed." |
|
|
|
Or they could just muster the resources and do it anyway, with no warning.
No unusual mining power growth can escape people's attention, you get the most paranoid bunch of guys in the world here, why bother with additional resources? And it's not even relevant, any prevention against 51% attack has to be implemented such that it's effective against all possible 51% attacks(which you have to do anyway if you can), to just target a particular group of people is ridiculous. They would do it as closely together as possible. They're unlikely to connect one machine at a time to the network. It's an example of a nation. But yes, it could be any nation with enough resources. |
|
|
|
Nice video.
These guys give bitcoin a good rep.
People talking bad of them must be jealous, and therefore dumb.
Non sequitur. |
|
|
|
|
Or they could just muster the resources and do it anyway, with no warning.
|
|
|
|
that was at best a below average talk. wow, harvard education and this is what public speaking sounds like? ouch.
Not everyone can give a Steve Job-like presentation. These guys are just VC's, rich kids with money to burn. But at least they speak in a honest and frank manner, from the bottom of their hearts. They don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They mock bankers, and their father is an actuary -- they got their money from the financial sector. What have they done or said that indicates they don't give a shit about Bitcoin? They want it regulated. They're shills for the financial industry. Maybe they see that regulation is unavoidable if Bitcoin is to gain mainstream adoption. It might not be a bad thing for services for Bitcoin to be regulated. But Bitcoin itself is difficult to regulate. So bitcoins can be, seized, restricted from crossing boarders, taxed, tracked, limited in the amount individuals can hold, and the exchanges run by the same people who screw everyone over now. They're bad things, IMO. I wouldn't go as far as equating regulation to all those scenario you've listed. Regulation does not necessarily mean seizing or tracking or restriction. It might be just regulation of exchanges, or maybe of merchants, but nothing too intrusive. FinCEN want to regulate virtual currency under the Bank Secrecy Act (1970): "Designed to help identify the source, volume, and movement of currency and other monetary instruments transported or transmitted into or out of the United States or deposited in financial institutions" "Required banks to (1) report cash transactions over $10,000 using the Currency Transaction Report; (2) properly identify persons conducting transactions; and (3) maintain a paper trail by keeping appropriate records of financial transactions" http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.htmlRestriction and tracking! And the DHS have already seized money in Mt. Gox's Dwolla account. If we're going to fight back against that kind of regulation, Bitcoin needs connections and influence of exactly the type the Twinkievoss twins can provide. They've already talked about getting a Washington lobbyist. We know they've got powerful buddies - that was the point of Harvard, right? The regulation is coming one way or another. Whether we are ready is up to us. The Bitcoin Foundation are going to hire a lobbyist. http://www.itworld.com/357078/bitcoiners-rally-enlighten-washington?page=0,1The Winklevoss's want Bitcoin to be regulated. They are the current system. And that's why they don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They care about adding 0s to their bankaccount, not about the freedom Bitcoin offers to everyone else. |
|
|
|
A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed.
I should apply XKCD's famous "$5 wretch" argument here: if an authoritarian government wants to screw you, there are much easier ways to do it than a 51% attack, otherwise if they want to play, they would be very careful to not tip the balance. Like what? Shutdown ASICMiner and Avalon, arrest everyone and scare the daylight out of all the remaining Chinese miners. That's far from the destruction of Bitcoin. They can do what they want in China, but not the rest of the world. No, per the status quo it would have the same effect: right now there is no viable ASIC producer out of China(BFL honestly is not there yet), if there will be at least one in the future, whatever China will do doesn't matter, people can just switch to the out of China producers. If there will not, then the "$5 wretch" attack still works. Even if there were no more ASICs produced, the current nodes would maintain the network. You didn't get me: the "$5 wretch" attack applies because had the CCP wanted to 51% attack the network, the easiest way to do it would be to arrest the ASICMiner/Avalon people for things like tax evasion, and confiscate all their blueprints, drawings, VHDL programs, manufacturing equipments so that they can easily replicate their own ASICs. Why buying/developing your own when you can get them for much cheaper? Besides, given how competent friedcat has been demonstrated to be, it's most possible that he has already correctly assessed the risk. OK. That's another whey they could pull off a 51% attack. It would be so visible that it makes no sense to pull it off at all. Why would they care about visibility? Bitcoin's not a national currency. If they don't care about publicity, I believe they would do it my way, as long as everyone is safe and sound, no need to worry. If they do care, then they would not pull off a 51%. Of course there are all under the condition that China is not interested in Bitcoin itself. Also, it needs to be pointed out that Bitcoin is great because it doesn't care about your political ideology, cultural background, social status and whatsoever, everyone can benefit from it other than possibly the staunchest banking system supporters, it's best not to make too big a fuss out of this if we don't have hard evidence. How can there be hard evidence, if it hasn't happened yet? And you've just given an example of how it can happen. Of course, Bitcoin is revolutionary. But ignoring an issue doesn't make it go away. |
|
|
|
A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed.
I should apply XKCD's famous "$5 wretch" argument here: if an authoritarian government wants to screw you, there are much easier ways to do it than a 51% attack, otherwise if they want to play, they would be very careful to not tip the balance. Like what? Shutdown ASICMiner and Avalon, arrest everyone and scare the daylight out of all the remaining Chinese miners. That's far from the destruction of Bitcoin. They can do what they want in China, but not the rest of the world. No, per the status quo it would have the same effect: right now there is no viable ASIC producer out of China(BFL honestly is not there yet), if there will be at least one in the future, whatever China will do doesn't matter, people can just switch to the out of China producers. If there will not, then the "$5 wretch" attack still works. Even if there were no more ASICs produced, the current nodes would maintain the network. You didn't get me: the "$5 wretch" attack applies because had the CCP wanted to 51% attack the network, the easiest way to do it would be to arrest the ASICMiner/Avalon people for things like tax evasion, and confiscate all their blueprints, drawings, VHDL programs, manufacturing equipments so that they can easily replicate their own ASICs. Why buying/developing your own when you can get them for much cheaper? Besides, given how competent friedcat has been demonstrated to be, it's most possible that he has already correctly assessed the risk. OK. That's another whey they could pull off a 51% attack. It would be so visible that it makes no sense to pull it off at all. Why would they care about visibility? Bitcoin's not a national currency. |
|
|
|
that was at best a below average talk. wow, harvard education and this is what public speaking sounds like? ouch.
Not everyone can give a Steve Job-like presentation. These guys are just VC's, rich kids with money to burn. But at least they speak in a honest and frank manner, from the bottom of their hearts. They don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They mock bankers, and their father is an actuary -- they got their money from the financial sector. What have they done or said that indicates they don't give a shit about Bitcoin? They want it regulated. They're shills for the financial industry. Maybe they see that regulation is unavoidable if Bitcoin is to gain mainstream adoption. It might not be a bad thing for services for Bitcoin to be regulated. But Bitcoin itself is difficult to regulate. So bitcoins can be, seized, restricted from crossing boarders, taxed, tracked, limited in the amount individuals can hold, and the exchanges run by the same people who screw everyone over now. They're bad things, IMO. I wouldn't go as far as equating regulation to all those scenario you've listed. Regulation does not necessarily mean seizing or tracking or restriction. It might be just regulation of exchanges, or maybe of merchants, but nothing too intrusive. FinCEN want to regulate virtual currency under the Bank Secrecy Act (1970): "Designed to help identify the source, volume, and movement of currency and other monetary instruments transported or transmitted into or out of the United States or deposited in financial institutions" "Required banks to (1) report cash transactions over $10,000 using the Currency Transaction Report; (2) properly identify persons conducting transactions; and (3) maintain a paper trail by keeping appropriate records of financial transactions" http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.htmlRestriction and tracking! And the DHS have already seized money in Mt. Gox's Dwolla account. |
|
|
|
A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed.
I should apply XKCD's famous "$5 wretch" argument here: if an authoritarian government wants to screw you, there are much easier ways to do it than a 51% attack, otherwise if they want to play, they would be very careful to not tip the balance. Like what? Shutdown ASICMiner and Avalon, arrest everyone and scare the daylight out of all the remaining Chinese miners. That's far from the destruction of Bitcoin. They can do what they want in China, but not the rest of the world. No, per the status quo it would have the same effect: right now there is no viable ASIC producer out of China(BFL honestly is not there yet), if there will be at least one in the future, whatever China will do doesn't matter, people can just switch to the out of China producers. If there will not, then the "$5 wretch" attack still works. Even if there were no more ASICs produced, the current nodes would maintain the network. You didn't get me: the "$5 wretch" attack applies because had the CCP wanted to 51% attack the network, the easiest way to do it would be to arrest the ASICMiner/Avalon people for things like tax evasion, and confiscate all their blueprints, drawings, VHDL programs, manufacturing equipments so that they can easily replicate their own ASICs. Why buying/developing your own when you can get them for much cheaper? Besides, given how competent friedcat has been demonstrated to be, it's most possible that he has already correctly assessed the risk. OK. That's another whey they could pull off a 51% attack. |
|
|
|
that was at best a below average talk. wow, harvard education and this is what public speaking sounds like? ouch.
Not everyone can give a Steve Job-like presentation. These guys are just VC's, rich kids with money to burn. But at least they speak in a honest and frank manner, from the bottom of their hearts. They don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They mock bankers, and their father is an actuary -- they got their money from the financial sector. What have they done or said that indicates they don't give a shit about Bitcoin? They want it regulated. They're shills for the financial industry. Maybe they see that regulation is unavoidable if Bitcoin is to gain mainstream adoption. It might not be a bad thing for services for Bitcoin to be regulated. But Bitcoin itself is difficult to regulate. So bitcoins can be, seized, restricted from crossing boarders, taxed, tracked, limited in the amount individuals can hold, and the exchanges run by the same people who screw everyone over now. They're bad things, IMO. |
|
|
|
A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed.
I should apply XKCD's famous "$5 wretch" argument here: if an authoritarian government wants to screw you, there are much easier ways to do it than a 51% attack, otherwise if they want to play, they would be very careful to not tip the balance. Like what? Shutdown ASICMiner and Avalon, arrest everyone and scare the daylight out of all the remaining Chinese miners. That's far from the destruction of Bitcoin. They can do what they want in China, but not the rest of the world. No, per the status quo it would have the same effect: right now there is no viable ASIC producer out of China(BFL honestly is not there yet), if there will be at least one in the future, whatever China will do doesn't matter, people can just switch to the out of China producers. If there will not, then the "$5 wretch" attack still works. Even if there were no more ASICs produced, the current nodes would maintain the network. |
|
|
|
that was at best a below average talk. wow, harvard education and this is what public speaking sounds like? ouch.
Not everyone can give a Steve Job-like presentation. These guys are just VC's, rich kids with money to burn. But at least they speak in a honest and frank manner, from the bottom of their hearts. They don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They mock bankers, and their father is an actuary -- they got their money from the financial sector. What have they done or said that indicates they don't give a shit about Bitcoin? They want it regulated. They're shills for the financial industry. |
|
|
|
A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed.
I should apply XKCD's famous "$5 wretch" argument here: if an authoritarian government wants to screw you, there are much easier ways to do it than a 51% attack, otherwise if they want to play, they would be very careful to not tip the balance. Like what? Shutdown ASICMiner and Avalon, arrest everyone and scare the daylight out of all the remaining Chinese miners. That's far from the destruction of Bitcoin. They can do what they want in China, but not the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
A government attack is a significant risk. Think about China: they have the resources to pull off the heinous deed.
I should apply XKCD's famous "$5 wretch" argument here: if an authoritarian government wants to screw you, there are much easier ways to do it than a 51% attack, otherwise if they want to play, they would be very careful to not tip the balance. Like what? |
|
|
|
that was at best a below average talk. wow, harvard education and this is what public speaking sounds like? ouch.
Not everyone can give a Steve Job-like presentation. These guys are just VC's, rich kids with money to burn. But at least they speak in a honest and frank manner, from the bottom of their hearts. They don't give a shit about Bitcoin. They mock bankers, and their father is an actuary -- they got their money from the financial sector. |
|
|
|
|
