There's even a company setting up to broadcast over digital radio so things like vending machines don't need an internet connection to verify transactions (in Sweden iirc).
Maybe off topic, back to mutant whales, interstellar locomotion and undertakers I guess.
Jeff Garzik has a project that is planning to launch satellites to broadcast the blockchain from orbit. http://www.coindesk.com/core-developer-bitcoin-node-space/ |
|
|
|
It is an example of one person taking advantage of the fact that nearly NO one else engages in such practice. NOT necessarily a bad thing to seek out ones own path.
Just out of curiosity, why do you always capitalize the word 'not'? Not criticizing or anything, really just curious. Are you "an example of one person taking advantage of the fact that nearly NO one else engages in such practice"?  |
|
|
|
|
The NYDFS extended comment period ends on Oct. 21. How long do you guys think it will be after that before NYDFS acts on virtual currency rules? I think a lot of bitcoin business is waiting to see how that shakes out...
|
|
|
|
The team will be led by VP of Troll management Proudhon
This thread would be a damn sight more entertaining if a true Pro Troll like Proudhon took control of the situation  |
|
|
|
ok you've got my intention there, this suggest that you have most of the issues figured out, how do you think we will solve:
1-The Block size limit when the number of transaction/minute is 100 times higher than today.
2-The block chain size when it exceeds 200GB or 1TB ? most users or services will have to use clusters of storage, if the adoption rate picks up this has to be fixed really fast.
3-The energy waste, it has been known that when the price goes up mining becomes more profitable and more resources are brought online...resources that most of us consider wasted, as of today the hashrate is more that 250 Petahash/s, assuming that the worst chip on the network consume 0.5w/ghs (which is way too optimistic) this means that at this point miners consume way more than 125 hourly Megawatts... just FYI a typical nuclear plant produce from 500-2000 hourly Megawatts.
4-DDOS attacks: when Bitcoin become bigger, there will be Big services that run the Bitcoind in order to offer their services, organized groups can run denial of service attacks against these services, you can read more about how they can do it in that wiki I provided before.
5-Malleability issue, and don't tell me it is not an issue, because it really is, and it is not fixed yet, they just found some work around it.
6-Double Spending, even if you don't have 51% of the network you can perform double spending with as little as 25% of the network,
7- The 51% attack, we all know what it is, it is achievable, any government can achieve it if they want to kill Bitcoin, even at this point.
8-man in the middle or packet sniffing, also described in that wiki.
There many more issues, but these are the one that concerns me for now. now I would like to hear your solutions.
Two more: 9- The average wait time for 1 confirmation is about 10 minutes; and, in a significant fraction of cases, can be 30 minutes or more. That is too much even for internet payments, and is unacceptable for shopping at brick-and-mortar stores. (In contrast, verification and payment with a chip-enabled credit card, which is the standard here in Brazil, takes less than 1 minute.) 10- There is no way to correct mistakes (like sending bitcoins to the wrong address) or to recover stolen coins. There is also the question of security against theft, but I am tired of arguing the obvious there... If you really care about the answer to questions such as these, you should probably ask in the 'Development & Technical Discussion' forum. The people in there can answer your questions handily, and very few of them read this thread, I think. |
|
|
|
people who buy BTC now (on the exchanges or over the counter, in bulk or retail) are paying the shopping bills of owners of old cheap coins who choose to "pay with bitcoin".
So once upon a time, it was relatively cheap to produce bitcoins, and those who produced them are now profiting from that. This is called 'seigniorage'. Wikipedia notes that 'Seigniorage is a convenient source of revenue for some governments.'. You are paying the shopping bills of those who produce your currency too. The difference with bitcoin is that there will only ever be 21M bitcoins which become more and more expensive to produce, so seigniorage for bitcoin is not quite the never-ending scam it is for governments. |
|
|
|
Only corporations should pay income taxes.
jmho
When you tax corporations, those taxes become part of their cost of doing business, and thus end up reflected in their prices. All taxes end up being paid by individuals, either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|
Solo mining would be excellent. I don't actually know how to go about it though. The core client doesn't let you just mine now.
Both CGMiner and BFGMiner have GBT solo mining modes now, specifically designed to let you solo mine directly to your local bitcoin node. The README for either miner will tell you all about it. |
|
|
|
No, the economy is not just a "chaotic system". That is a system with a very few parameters and simple deterministic rule that nonetheless has a very complicated and practically unpredictable behavior. Even so, one can study such systems mathematically and prove rigorously statements about them (I even have a paper on them.) The economy is MUCH worse, one cannot even start describing it mathematically. (In case it is not obvious, I have an extremely low opinion of economists. I don't think that it was a coincidence that the president of Brazil who was absolutely best for the economy was a mechanics worker without college education. Dilma unfortunately has a degree in Economics, and picked an Economists as her chief of staff; even though she is politically committed to keep the country going in the right direction, she is visibly hampered by that handicap.) It looks to me like you are redefining the definition of all chaotic systems as the definiton of the simplest such system - but, the definition of chaotic systems, again, is not why I originally responded to you. Your contention that a system that is complex is a priori utterly resistant to scientific method seems absolutely silly  Honestly, NotLambChop made my point in a post above better than I was making it. FWIW, I share your disdain for "economists" in general, as I perceive most of them to be philosophers or politicians, rather than scientists. I would not, however, paint them all with that brush. |
|
|
|
You seem to think it is somehow not 'hard science' to study dynamic nonlinear systems, and that no good can come of such study. [ ... ]You answer does not address whether it is possible that there might exist a hard science of economics, as opposed to a mere philosophy, which was the original point. Characterizing economics as a dynamic nonlinear system (which it certainly is), does not invalidate it as a subject of hard science.
The problem is not that the economy is non-linear, the problem is that the system is too big and complex, and it has so many unpredictable external inputs, that we cannot build a useful scientifically sound model for it. To have any hope of being predictive, the model would have to include corporations and consumers of all size, governments, religions, the media, greedy dishonest bankers, etc. etc. One cannot predict predict its behavior with a few simple equations of three or four variables whose values have to be guessed. That is not science, it is pseudo-science. You are describing dynamic nonlinear (chaotic) systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system#Nonlinear_dynamical_systems_and_chaos |
|
|
|
The science of physics is an attempt to understand All of Reality, which is generally considered to be an even larger set of phenomena than your description of economics Are you suggesting that since we can never really understand All of Reality, that no 'hard science' of physics can exist, and that such a purported 'hard science' of physics can't have any predictive power or utility? Physics does not want to understand all the universe. It only wants to understands how its parts work, and generally limits itself to the smallest and simplest parts. Phisicists may study the behavior of isolated atoms of generic bonds between atoms, but if you ask them to predict what a dozen atoms will do when they get together, they will tell you "sorry that's Chemistry, not Phisics". Ditto if you want to predict tomorrow's weather, create a better strain of wheat, cook a good meal, pick up a girl at the bar... And even the simplest "economic atoms" are already way more complicated than a tropical storm... You seem to think it is somehow not 'hard science' to study dynamic nonlinear systems, and that no good can come of such study. I don't know why you think that, but I'm pretty sure a vast array of scientists, from meteorologists to mathematicians to quantum cosmologists would strongly disagree with you. You answer does not address whether it is possible that there might exist a hard science of economics, as opposed to a mere philosophy, which was the original point. Characterizing economics as a dynamic nonlinear system (which it certainly is), does not invalidate it as a subject of hard science. |
|
|
|
The world's economy is such a complicated system that no one can know its state and workings well enough to make any useful predictions. Technological innovation is a major source of uncertainty. So are natural events and disasters (wars, droughts, eruptions, oilfield discoveries, nuclear meltdowns, etc.)
The science of physics is an attempt to understand All of Reality, which is generally considered to be an even larger set of phenomena than your description of economics Are you suggesting that since we can never really understand All of Reality, that no 'hard science' of physics can exist, and that such a purported 'hard science' of physics can't have any predictive power or utility? |
|
|
|
There can't be rigorous arguments in economics or other "soft sciences". It is pointless to debate if we start disagreeing right there...
Is it really true that economics is a 'soft' science, or is it that people seem to have a ridiculously difficult time separating the philosophy of economics from the actual science of economics? Every science, even the hardest of sciences, like mathematics and physics, also have multiple philosophies underlying them, but somehow people don't seem to get the two aspects confused. Economics seems to be a special case in the sciences in a number of ways though. It seems that scientific thought advanced steadily throughout history in pretty much every field except one - economics. The ancient Greeks started to develop a science of economic thought, but somehow it seems to have just faded away, for reasons not entirely clear to me. The situation stayed that way for quite some time, until Adam Smith reestablished economics as a science. It has to make you wonder - how could one aspect of existence, especially one so vital to our well-being, be left so utterly neglected for so long? Could it be that some folks have a vested interest in most people NOT having a real scientific understanding of economics? Could it be that some people STILL have conflicted interests along these lines, and profit from blurring the lines between economic science and economic philosophy? |
|
|
|
So basically what you are saying is that it is only possible for a single hasher to solve a block if it is just their shares that solve the entire block.
That would imply that a solo mining pool is a fraud as this will NEVER realistically happen with the hashing power in the hands of home miners.
EVERY block is solved with a SINGLE hash. You should spend some time reading up on this stuff at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining . |
|
|
|
I think you got closest to what I was asking, but not quite.
I did not mean to ask "if work can be submitted twice" as you say.
When mining directly / solo mining, I assume you still get rewarded for solving part of the chain, however, most solo mining nodes (including this one) do not relay those minute rewards (if any), only IF you solve the entire block. So that was the crust of my question, can a solo mining pool be set up whereby rather than (realistically) mining for nothing short of hitting the jackpot, the mining can be rewarded however lowly?
Thanks for explaining, and I am sure I am missing something that is obvious to yourself (but ofcourse very foreign to me!).
In a normal pool, when a block is found, the reward for that block is distributed to all the users who contributed work to the pool. When solo mining, the solo miner takes the whole block reward for himself. You cannot simultaneously give all 25 BTC to the miner that found it AND divide it up among everyone who is hashing on the pool. |
|
|
|
I have never set up a client to do solo mining and I don't know how to. I guess that would be my next project in this addictive mining hobby. Only started mining for a month So I do have much to read and to learn. It has been fun so far. unless you have a substantial amount of hashpower you will really not even have any way to verify that you have everything set up properly as you will likely never find a block You can verify a proper mining setup by using testnet. |
|
|
|
But the verdict obviously did not say that stolen cash ceases to be the property of the victim just because "cash is fungible". Police routinely seize money from cash thieves and return it to the victims. If the thief exchanged the cash for other valuables, without the merchant's knowledge, the cash then is "clean", but the valuables are still seized, as being conceptually the victim's property.
I didn't suggest that it said that. I am emphasizing fungibility specifically because most (maybe all) schemes I have seen that would add to bitcoin some kind of 'consumer protection' against theft would also make bitcoin non-fungibile, and useless as a currency. Additionally, NO currency that I am aware of has built-in consumer protections, and very likely cannot have such without giving up fungibility, and therefore utility as a currency - and that is the specific issue dealt with by the decision in this case. However, catching a bitcoin thief will be quite hard in general. The transaction that stole your bitcoins may have been issued from your own computer, automatically, by some self-erasing malware, while the hacker was not even online. You can point to the stolen coins in the blockchain, but the thief may leave the coins there for years, and no one can take them from him. Or he can hack into an old PC in Mongolia, and from there tumble the coins so thoroughly that it will be practically impossible to trace them to his person when he finally spends them.
This is true, but I don't think the bitcoin theft situation is in any meaningful way different than theft of cash in the form of any currency. Do you really think it would be easier to get your money back from some random thief that steals your wallet? I don't see the huge risk associated with bitcoin that doesn't exist with any other kind of cash, and that seems to be your thesis. I'm sure you will correct me if I am misinterpreting you. AFAIK no theft of bitcoins by outside hackers has been solved, by the police or anyone else. In several cases of insider theft, the culprit was identified with high probability, but I don't know of any case where the evidence was sufficient to get a conviction.
As far as I know, this is true also - but bitcoin is still very new. I'm sure that you can find similar cases where cash money was stolen, and although there was a suspect who's guilt in the theft was deemed highly likely, sufficient legal proof for prosecution/recovery was not found. |
|
|
|
Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property. The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim.
You have missed the point. The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies. It's called 'fungibility'. The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money. Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency. I know what "fungibility" means, But note the boldfaces in my post. That is exactly what I wrote. The court ruled that that physical banknote was not the victim's property any more. But of course the 20£ (as abstract amount) that the thief stole remained the victim's property, and the government would take 20£ from the thief and return then to the victim, if they were to identify him and found that he had that much money in his possession or in his bank account. They did not say that. You are putting your words into the mouths of 18th century jurists The entire importance of this case is that it is the first legal recognition of the requirement of fungibility for usable currency. That being said, I can't imagine that the legal powers that be would not see X amount of bitcoin returned to one from whom it had been robbed, if the robber could be positively identified, just as they might with X US dollars that had been stolen. It's not clear to me why you emphasize the 'physical note', because with most modern currencies, the owner rarely actually possesses a physical note of any kind. It's also not clear to me why you think legal remedies for theft of bitcoins must differ significantly from what they would be for other effectively virtual currencies, like US dollars. |
|
|
|
Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there. Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.
Jorge, here is a study of an important case involving the theft of bank notes and the Royal Bank of Scotland. This case illustrates pretty clearly why fungibility of a currency takes precedence over being able to recover stolen currency. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property. The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim. Ideally the same should happen in bitcoinland: if a hacker steals one bitcoin from you, and buys a megapizza with it, you should be able to ask the government to hunt down the hacker, and take one bitcoin (not THAT bitcoin), or equivalent dollars, from HIS possessions (not from the pizza parlor's possessions) and return it to you. But, in reality, you will not even be able to prove to the police that a theft took place. You have missed the point. The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies. It's called 'fungibility'. The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money. Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency. |
|
|
|
Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there. Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.
Jorge, here is a study of an important case involving the theft of bank notes and the Royal Bank of Scotland. This case illustrates pretty clearly why fungibility of a currency takes precedence over being able to recover stolen currency. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952There is no dilemma here - it is design. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
