I support Satoshi's ideas.
I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years) that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all. The block size limit is a short term hack. Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while. BIP100 looks promising though. |
|
|
|
metals have a intrinsic value while bitcoins does not. i no longer trust bitcoin because it is, in my opinion, manipulated by whales and exchanges.your in the club or your not... their are predators out hunting for some poor newb who invests a bunch money into the scheme while they pump it and then they turn around and dump on them causing them to fear and dump their coins at a loss for their gain.. you trying to claim that is a system we can trust ?? this is my new opinion about bitcoin.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Gold's utility value is pretty low and its current price is mostly speculative. Good luck with that. You write that as if it were either true or meaningful, so lets unpack it a bit. This "no such thing as intrinsic value" notion depends whether you are talking philosophy or economics. Economics has a practical definition of intrinsic value, which very different from the arguments philosophers use. So there is such a thing, unless you are 'only' a philosopher and not also an economist. For those that are both, or are at least economists, the opposite is true. |
|
|
|
Yeah I heard that as well, I would've searched my ass off on that dump if that had happened to me. But it never will as I still online wallets for my transactions and bitcoins. Oo You realize that WAY more bitcoins were lost (to their owners) because they held coins on exchanges, online wallets and such? You really should think that over. Giving your bitcoins to someone other brings always the question up if you get them back. Only when you control the private key and no one other has access to it, then you can say that you are relatively safe. Sometimes both happen at the same time. When the exchange accidentally deletes its wallet! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2828445 |
|
|
|
But what benefit would (monetary) metal have compared to crypto? I only see downsides It's a handy edge if and when the power grid craps out. Yeah, cell phones & tablets are portable and have batteries... but those batteries can't get charged off the grid [solar] in 99% of all cases. Gradually, this will change for the better-but slowly. Bitcoin remains dependent on electricity and the internet. As do many other things, precious metals are not among those things. Precious metals are money to more people in the world than is bitcoin. This may not always be true. A dual system with both would be better than either alone. |
|
|
|
As gmax quipped, "the attack is actually much less effective against the network itself than it is against the forums."
Users sending tx with appropriately competitive fees (IE normal people) have not been frustrated.
Hilarious, I'd missed this, have a link? |
|
|
|
If we rephrase your statement to replace the alarmist "red zone" nonsense with something less panicky and more practical, we get:
A surge in transaction volume has led to a healthy fee market--six months ahead of schedule.
The 'red zone' coincides with an increase in hash rate and price. Is there a metric for user frustration more useful than percentage of blocks being full? It might be hard to find a less useful one. |
|
|
|
|
We are better off without 1326, whether or not you care anything about Bitcoin, and despite what the lobbyists are posting here.
I don't have any use for some phony consumer protection from the state of California, coupled with some enforcement regime that suddenly will have to find a way to justify its existence and cost. Scammers will rush to be certified, while the well run transparent business don't need it and just get additional hassles.
Meanwhile, we force the rest of the Californians who have nothing to do with Bitcoin (yet) to pay for this new agency. The first they hear of it is that their State is spending money it doesn't have making up new protection rackets for the incumbent banks.
Yet more banking law to prevent competition? Really?
|
|
|
|
It figures. My sell order was at $296.62 missed the top by 52 cents. This keeps happening to me. Look people, we don't have a central bank so it's up to us day traders to keep the price stable enough for bitcoin to be usable as a currency. if it jumps up 10% in a day, sell. buy when it retraces 5%. don't let it rise too far too fast. It's unsustainable, draws in the wrong crowd and drives out more cautious investors.
I would be happy to see consolidation in this range for a few days before the assault on $300.
Remember, you have more money to buy the dips if you sell the spikes.
Thank you for providing this liquidity and stability, and I wish you every success with it. |
|
|
|
I've seen many people lately criticising bitcoin's lack of authority as a possible weakness. From what it seems, users have to put (at least some) trust to miners and pools and rely on them for things like generating blocks with updated clients, including transactions etc. Wouldn't such an issue scale up as bitcoin grows? Could it be addressed somehow?
On the assumption that this is an earnest inquiry and not just concern-trolling... Where is the "weakness" in a lack of authority? According to the designer it is intended as the lack of a weakness. http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/4/Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-07 12:30:36 UTC
>[Lengthy exposition of vulnerability of a systm to use-of-force
>monopolies ellided.]
>
>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.
Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own.
Satoshi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List Protocol engineering inevitably requires many trade-offs where one strength may traded for another or balanced based on other characteristics and the environment in which it operates. If someone questions the lack of authority as a weakness, May I suggest you ask them to explain how this is so in the face of open-sourced software, and p2p architecture. |
|
|
|
The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.
Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.
Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.
Edit: Agree, and... Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual. Currently we have a sort of default fee, and the only resource counted is TX size. The spam consumes also a different resource, the UXTO data set. To charge for that resource, it might take some sort of incremental fee increase for outputs > inputs? |
|
|
|
I cannot ascertain the reason, why our members still opting to sell Bitcoin to buy precious metals gold and silver, are we loosing our hope on Bitcoin, and it is sad to watch that Bitcoin has been used to mere exchange rather than showing any desire to spread this innovative digital currency technology in all financial sectors.
Do you think that bitcoin should never be spent, or just that precious metals are not precious to you? This is essentially showing that bitcoin is "backed" by precious metals at least as well as anything else. To some people this shows a level of confidence in it that you don't get so much with other virtual currencies. You do realize that gold and silver are still money to more people on planet Earth than is bitcoin, yes? |
|
|
|
The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.
It will cost 40 BTC per block, 240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day, 40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-) When 1/7th of all bitcoin is being bought at market and redistributed to miners each year, there is going to be some interesting price action. They attacker is going to have to print a lot of money to keep up with this. |
|
|
|
If people want police, roads, and other stuff, then somebody will provide that service.
The idea that only the state can provide those things is a fairy tale. It's kind of embarrassing to live in a world where so many adults still believe in those kind of myths.
It's possible in smaller communities where such things have direct impacts on the quality of life of the people you're associating with. When you scale up it's human nature to not want to inconvenience oneself for the sake of unseen others despite making similar use of pooled facilities. One anarcho capitalist commune is going to struggle somewhat to build a new railway. If you recruit a few others to join in, whaddya know you're mired in political manoeuvres again. Greek city-states have shown some competence historically. Smaller more local governance could be a big improvement in the ability to get things done without government barriers. |
|
|
|
|
What happens if the Greek State dissolves... There is no one from which to collect any of this debt.
Similar to the USSR breakup, only in this case, what remains would be Greek City-States, like it used to be so long ago.
In this result, the ECB loses their "investment", and perhaps at least one of the City-States will have no central banker?
|
|
|
|
About a year and a half ago... |
|
|
|
One of the biggest reason Greek economy is totaly fucked up is because people did not pay tax. If they where to adopt a crypto as currency they would have serious problems with tax collection and would go bankrupt faster than with any other currency.
That sort of depends on whether your goal is to save the Greek state, or help the Greek people... The Greek state is not as bad off as some of the US states. If the ECB is serious about keeping them from seceding, they will do something to keep them in the Eurozone. |
|
|
|
If they wanted to inflict damage, real damage they could have sent all that spam at once.
But the spam comes in waves starting and stopping to keep the backlog in a target area.
HUm perhaps this is a warning we have a flaw and not an attack.. you could be onto something. NON THE LESS, we need to act. If you MUST ACT: Raise your fees on your transactions, and move on to something more interesting. |
|
|
|
How would them trying to earn a better revenue by sending spam not be considered an attack? It is still a malicious event.
The cost is going to be greater than the revenue increase, unless this is being performed by all miners equivalently. I suppose some of it depends on your definition of 'malice', it may be done by a non-miner, no one has confessed to it yet, yes? |
|
|
|
It's game over, guys. The powers the be want Bitcoin gone. I've found out that this isn't being done by some one off random hacker dude somewhere messing around trying to cause some chaos. This is a coordinated effort by some of the largest and most powerful financial entities in the world to destabilize the network and ruin bitcoin for good. The bitcoin "community" has no options available for stopping this from happening. This is an ant vs a lion type battle. They have billions of dollars - transaction fees are inconsequential. They have millions of servers and personnel. Cash out your bitcoins into fiat now before it's too late as this is just a warmup for a longer more broad attack that shall fell bitcoin. It was obvious this day would come do you really think the fiat complex would actually let bitcoin become a threat to their dominance? a decentralized currency means no one has ultimate control. Humans won't accept not being able to control the masses.
It's time to bleed the pigs dry, we can eaisly make it cost them a 10's of million of dollars every 10min to do this.. funneling that wealth to the miners. This COULD be the event that hangs the old money who have ran this world for to long. If only this were true. It would mark the beginning of the end for them. How wonderful that TPTB would be dumping cash into miner's pockets in a misguided attempt to "destabilize the network". Bitcoin Transaction Fee Market Spam "test" Result: 1) bitcoin price up, 2) Bitcoin hash rate up, 3) increased miner profitability Such destabilize. |
|
|
|
|
Miner revenue is up, but not by much. Fees are still a small fraction of the mining reward.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
