|
321
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Oops - 20BTC fee paid on .05 transaction?
|
on: December 16, 2013, 06:49:38 AM
|
|
These websites really should not be exposing the technical innards of bitcoin to random people. Also, "brainwallets" should die in a fire.
And as a lesson to everyone watching, always run your raw transactions through a decoder before you sign it. Hopefully one smart enough to look up the inputs and warn you if you are about to make a huge mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
322
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are bitcoins indestructible?
|
on: December 16, 2013, 06:43:43 AM
|
It's impossible to send them to an invalid address, BUT it's entirely possible to send them to an address for which no one has the key.
Take for example: 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE
Check it out on blockchain. If you can brute force the private key, the coins are yours. Is it impossible? Theoretically, no, but practically...
Let's say you had a super computer that was guessing 999 trillion keys per second. It would take you 3.5 billion years to exhaust just 10% of the keyspace, which means in 3.5 billion years you would have a 10% chance of having guessed the key. Good luck with those odds!
Actually - given enough time - is it theoretically possible to crack the private key to that address? I mean in the future computers will be 1000x more powerful than they are today. Will our brains be blown out of our bodies? See Syke's answer. Also: private key is a 256 bit integer. public key is a pair of 256 bit integers giving the (x,y) coordinates of a point, or a single 256 bit x coordinate and a parity bit used to reconstruct y. address is a hash of the public key. The bitcoin eater was made at step 3. Because it was made at step 3, we don't know if there are any points on our curve that can be hashed to give that address. This point isn't well understood around here. |
|
|
|
|
323
|
Economy / Economics / Re: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN?
|
on: December 15, 2013, 04:39:56 PM
|
Your argument is that something is "backed" by it's properties. Philosophers care greatly about the distinction between a thing and the properties of the thing, but for the most part, ordinary people do not. Most of us see "X is backed by X" to be of the same essence as "X is backed by the properties of X", and we recognize that we've been led around in a circle.
All your "refutation" boils down to saying that I am wrong because my reasoning is circular, but you don't give neither factual evidence nor logical argument why it is circular. Since you tried to level down my understanding of backing with "value by trading" (which is wrong), I can beforehand tell that it is your reasoning (whatever it might be) which is false... When your argument is "X because X" or "X because Y because X", you've formed a circle. The evidence is that you ended up in the same place you started. but this core usefulness (which is what people mean by backing) cannot simply exist beyond some inherent properties of things...
No one* means that when they ask what backs bitcoin. Generally, when someone asks "What backs bitcoin?" they really mean "I'm under the mistaken impression that the dollar is redeemable for something. What is bitcoin redeemable for?". Go read some of the dozens of threads on that topic if you don't believe it. * I'm using "no one" approximately here, since you are an obvious counterexample. |
|
|
|
|
325
|
Economy / Economics / Re: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN?
|
on: December 15, 2013, 02:43:49 PM
|
From this, it is obvious that the dollar, or any other modern fiat, is not backed, and not redeemable. We would not care, as long as the supply is limited in the same way as gold, but in case of fiat, the supply is of course not limited.
The bitcoin is not redeemable or backed, but the supply is totally unelastic.
Bitcoin and fiat are both unbacked, the difference is the supply.
This doesn't reply the question why dollars (or anything for that matter) have value. When people ask what is backing dollar (bitcoin), by backing they usually mean what gives it value... This is why this thread is pointless. Things have value because people want them. Why they want them is not important to the notion of value. This is a very difficult concept for many people to understand, including you. They (you) cannot accept that value doesn't have to "come from" anything, so they (you) scramble to invent post hoc rationalizations and torture the common language until it fits their biases. If carried too far, as you have done, you end up with a pointless definition. Your argument is that something is "backed" by it's properties. Philosophers care greatly about the distinction between a thing and the properties of the thing, but for the most part, ordinary people do not. Most of us see "X is backed by X" to be of the same essence as "X is backed by the properties of X", and we recognize that we've been led around in a circle. The non-circular definition is that "backed by" means "redeemable for", as in "Before 1971, the dollar was backed by gold" meaning "Before 1971, the dollar was redeemable for gold". Of course, accepting this means accepting that most value is not "backed" by anything at all... |
|
|
|
|
326
|
Economy / Economics / Re: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN?
|
on: December 15, 2013, 01:16:01 PM
|
This thread is a great example of people inventing a new meaning of "backing" on the spot. Obviously, a discussion of what backs bitcoin, or a fiat currency, or gold, or beer is worthless if nobody even agrees on what "backing" or 'backed by" means.
I stick to very simple and cogent definition of what backing is or what being backed by actually means, i.e. an inherent property or quality that makes something useful in reaching an individual's aims and ends or preventing the occurrence of some adverse consequences... Your take? This is one of the two bizarro definitions of "backed" that people use when they get into a scramble. The other is trade, and neither is a useful definition unless your brain is stuck. These are perfectly circular definitions that apply to literally everything in the world. It boils down to: X is backed by the value of X because (X is useful | X can be traded). Also, "can be traded" is a special form of "is useful", so these are really a single circle. You are neither the only one nor the first one here who is at first trying to impute to me some assumption and then trying to refute it as if it were my point. I specifically mentioned about inherent properties or qualities that make something useful. Trading is not inherent, so don't try to play this trick about circular definitions again... Try reading? I refuted your circular claims about usefulness, plus the parallel claim of trade, which are circular in exactly the same way. We already have a word for value. Why would we want to define backed to mean "has value"? Simple and cogent, sure, but also pointless.
For a day-trader, bitcoin volatility may be useful, thus giving bitcoin value as a means of reaching his aims, right? Is volatility inherent to it? Certainly not, since bitcoin would still be bitcoin, even if it wasn't that volatile. If gold somehow lost its indestructibility, would it remain gold as we know it? The difference is evident, so value is not the same thing as backing... I hope this clarifies the issue a bit The problem with your argument isn't that it is unclear. As already pointed out, you made up your own ad hoc definition, and I pointed out that it forms a perfect pointless circle. Water has inherent properties that make it useful, so by your definition, "Water is backed by the value of water because water is useful." Feel free to stuff "inherent" in there wherever you feel it will do the most good, if it offends you that I left it out. It still forms a circle, and it still applies to literally everything in the world, making it pointless. |
|
|
|
|
327
|
Economy / Economics / Re: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN?
|
on: December 15, 2013, 05:23:17 AM
|
This thread is a great example of people inventing a new meaning of "backing" on the spot. Obviously, a discussion of what backs bitcoin, or a fiat currency, or gold, or beer is worthless if nobody even agrees on what "backing" or 'backed by" means.
I stick to very simple and cogent definition of what backing is or what being backed by actually means, i.e. an inherent property or quality that makes something useful in reaching an individual's aims and ends or preventing the occurrence of some adverse consequences... Your take? This is one of the two bizarro definitions of "backed" that people use when they get into a scramble. The other is trade, and neither is a useful definition unless your brain is stuck. These are perfectly circular definitions that apply to literally everything in the world. It boils down to: X is backed by the value of X because (X is useful | X can be traded). Also, "can be traded" is a special form of "is useful", so these are really a single circle. We already have a word for value. Why would we want to define backed to mean "has value"? Simple and cogent, sure, but also pointless. "Backed by" means "is a token redeemable for", as I described in an earlier post in this thread. Bitcoin isn't backed by anything. Neither is the dollar. Neither is gold. Abandon the incorrect notion that backing is necessary for value. (This is where the regression theory comes up. Either the chain of regression has been broken, or regression applies to the evolution of money in general, not to specific instances of money.) |
|
|
|
|
329
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: December 14, 2013, 12:26:01 PM
|
Hilariously, what we think of as digital signatures (cryptographic) are pretty much just an afterthought to most of those laws. Typically, those laws are about fax machines, and web buttons labelled "I agree" and other such nonsense.
Bullshit. If you made a website with the following elements: "I own all your shit now" and a button stating "I agree" A visitor clicking said button would not transfer ownership. Similarly a "these are Risto's coins" message is not a contract and isn't binding. You ever buy a house? Odds are really good that one or both of the agents in the deal uses a website that presents documents with a fancy version of the "I agree" button. They don't usually use it for the closing or the note (where you agree to pay the money back) because those need to be witnessed, notarized and recorded. But for everything else (purchase contract, disclosures, etc), it is a bunch of clicking. |
|
|
|
|
330
|
Economy / Economics / Re: So are all these people paying CGT on cars they're buying with BTC?
|
on: December 14, 2013, 05:23:26 AM
|
Capital gain only counts when you cash out to fiat, currently there is no clear rules when you exchange it with goods This is challenging for accounting. Imagine that you spent 100 coins at the beginning of the year ($1500) in your business and get a return of 10 coins at the end of the year($9000), then your result is a loss of 90 coins, you should get a tax deduction of 90 coins, which is $81000  However, if counted in USD, you have a net gain of $7500, so you have to pay income tax... Almost everything you said is wrong. Almost? |
|
|
|
|
332
|
Economy / Economics / Re: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN?
|
on: December 14, 2013, 02:31:13 AM
|
|
Bitcoin is not backed by anything. Neither is the dollar. Neither is gold. Etc.
"backed" does not mean "can be used in trade". If it did, then they would all be "backed" by their markets.
"backed" means "is a token for". Once upon a time, a dollar was a silver coin. Then it was a paper slip that could be redeemed for a silver coin or, in quantity, for a gold coin. Those slips were "backed by" the metal reserves. Now it is just a paper slip, not redeemable for anything. But observe that all three iterations of the dollar could, and still can, be traded for various things, including the silver or gold coins they once represented.
|
|
|
|
|
333
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: December 14, 2013, 02:17:34 AM
|
I guess in your view it's a choice between structural violence and authoritarian physical violence, and you prefer the authoritarian physical violence?
BTW, what would you call the starvation in USSR from a badly planned economy that killed millions? Was that structural violence?
Don't just let this douchebag impose his language on you. Capitalism is not structural violence. authority = violence Capitalism seeks to minimize authority and thus violence. The rest seek to maximize (or at the very least increase). When violence is a critical and necessary part of the system, it is structural. Through the miracle of Orwellian doublespeak, "freedom" means making others work for your benefit, against their will if necessary. Some of the videos are interesting. You might want to watch one. It is always useful knowing what the left is thinking, and the guy in the videos is far less annoying that the guys here on the forums. |
|
|
|
|
334
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Finite Supply vs Steadily Increasing Supply
|
on: December 13, 2013, 10:39:39 PM
|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Nowhere in your wall of text did you realize that contracts could specify valuation in terms of a basket of goods without putting the currency itself in the hands of madmen? |
|
|
|
|
336
|
Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [70 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
|
on: December 13, 2013, 04:46:05 PM
|
I've been mining at p2pool for months now, without problems, but over the past week i've seen my payout plummet, today it has arrived at 0.00000.
The console tells me everything is fine, it's connected to both bitcoin and the peers, it's running at X GH/s steady, shares are being accepted and i have it running 24/7, yet it tells me 'current payout: 0.00000'.
Whats going on here?
Your hashrate is not capable of keeping a share active at all times. See "Expected time to share:" |
|
|
|
|
337
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: December 13, 2013, 02:58:45 PM
|
There is a reason that you people believe communist=socialist=Marxist=terrorist...
There just isn't much reason to carefully differentiate the precise motives of murderers. |
|
|
|
|
338
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If confirmation takes 10 minutes, how will I buy coffee at Starbucks?
|
on: December 12, 2013, 12:39:30 PM
|
|
I'm pretty sure that most retail purchases will be done by VISA, MasterCard, Discover, etc. Or, if those guys are slow to get on the train, they'll go extinct while startups provide the same services they provide, but for bitcoin.
Those companies exist pretty much for the sole purpose of mediating transactional risks. They also have the advantage of keeping small transactions off the blockchain (aka out of the ACH system).
Pretty hard to imagine a world where no one is doing what they do.
|
|
|
|
|
339
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are bitcoins indestructible?
|
on: December 12, 2013, 12:30:11 PM
|
so... if we aimed all the Hashing power of the Bitcoin network on one address it would take 500 million years? Hey man It's only a matter of time before insane quantum computers just start cracking the codes by the second. I can imagine this will happen one day, when the Bitcoin network migrates to a new protocol based on quantum security. Those computers will tear Bitcoin apart when they finally are able to produce them in mass, and start migrating all the accounts to a new system like a block reward, Or just like the free market migrate by choice to something safer.
Quantum computers do not appear to be particularly adept at hashing. More specifically, using Grover's Algorithm, the time taken to find a preimage of a hash (i.e. a reverse hash) is the square-root of the time for a classical attack. e.g. a 256-bit hash becomes like a 128-bit hash. It's not considered a big problem since the times are still very long. Not to wander too far off topic, but Grover's solves circuits. Circuit means the function must be completely unrolled in both time and space, so that there is no memory and no iteration, just logic gates. A circuit for SHA-256 is far beyond our capabilities, much less double SHA-256. I'm not sure we are even capable of designing such a thing. Oh, and did I mention that all those trillions (quadrillions? pentillions? who knows?) of logic gates have to be reversible quantum gates? And that they all have to be kept coherent? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
