jobs didnt have the brains to design bitcoin. He was a visionary and great speaker / ceo but always left the nerd work to the smart people.
This is not true (at least the last part of your statement). He was very smart, significantly above average intelligence. He was able to design apple computers when there was nothing to go off of. Wrong Steve. Woz was the techie, Jobs was the faceman. |
|
|
|
Ding ding f***ing ding! They are getting it! |
|
|
|
Awww, look at puppy Blitz, before he became all callous and cynical about the markets... He even complained about a "manipulator" who's "keeping the price down" ... just like the new noobs are doing now :3 Don't ban me please  Back then, at least until 2012, you actually had absolutely blatant manipulation, putting up scare walls and pulling them which was relatively common. Nowadays, it's actually the exception. The markets have become relatively deep (compared to the past!) and much harder to move, particularly when you consider how distributed the exchange volume is nowadays. If you'd been there, you would have probably viewed it the same – ask WA, he's least susceptible to such delusions and even he saw the manipulation. There's no doubt I attributed the manipulators too much meaning though, particularly in 2012 when there were 50k walls. The manipulators pass with time. Now you can all see what the manipulator looked like. But the manipulator back then was even more aggressive. I nominate Blitz for the first Best Necro "I Told You So" Award. |
|
|
|
good morning and CHOO
Bless you and good morning |
|
|
|
|
If you can make it turnkey for pc install and VPS, then yes please.
|
|
|
|
|
A five year regulatory review window should be just about right. That will give time for Bitcoin developers in Canada to self-regulate and build tools that are useful. It's good to see that America's Hat is still a Thinking Cap.
|
|
|
|
I am not against the design of nxt.
 Okay. So what are you against? That's like saying, "I'm not against the design of Bitcoin, but I'm against Gox hacks, I'm against Satoshi mining solo for a year, I'm against the way mining has become corporate etc... so I think Bitcoin is a scam coin" The lists of reasons Jeff thinks Nxt is a scam are all superficial and have nothing to do with the core technology. Regardless, you tear down rather than build up, be constructive, do something good for crypto. Dude, I never said I hated nxt. I just don't agree with some of the claims about it. It is simply not provably decentralized. You can say the same thing about Bitcoin if you want. I don't care. This is getting to be a religious argument. Nxt proponents that claim it is decentralized are making unfalsifiable claims. There is plenty of room for centralized coins that don't use any electricity. you cant have one with out the other. prove one is correct and from that you can prove the other to be false. find proof before posting again and STOP SPREADING FUD. im not arguing now which is one is a true statement ie nxt is centralised or not, im just pointing out that you are an idiot if you think you can say one is fact and the other is unfalsifiable. and dont say that you have not stated, as if it were fact, that nxt is centralised because you have many times. your an outright hypocrite with motivations that cause you to post such bullsh*t. The original claimant has the responsibility to offer falsification. Popper may not be dead, but this is a basic axiom of science. NXT users claim that it cannot become permanently centralized. They offer no test to verify if it is decentralized. They just say so. Isn't the original claimant here Jeff Garzik? He posted accusations, he has the responsibility to prove. So far there's been no proof whatsoever. And you guys attacking NXT are just piggybacking on Jeff's accusations, possessing no proof either. Please stop taking my statements out of context. |
|
|
|
NXT users claim that it cannot become permanently centralized. They offer no test to verify if it is decentralized. They just say so.
PoS crypto like NXT platforms will get more and more decentralized. More users using/owning NXT -> better distribution -> more lightweight wallets staking (on phones and raspberrypi's) -> even more secure network. Also, as soon as the Transparent Forging technology is ready, one would need to own (=buy) more than 90+% of all NXT, if I understand correctly. That would drive the price of NXT through the roof. You're talking about hypotheticals and vaporware. Go you. BTC will become more and more centralized (physically). As difficulty of mining increases, it can't be done by consumers, only by companies that can invest in expensive equipment. Companies merge and get bought. They will be in central locations that can house massive server parks, needing huge amounts of energy. It's much easier and cheaper to (physically) attack of hack of dismantle a couple of centralized server farms than it is to take down a decentralized network that runs on peoples phones and private computers.
Seems rather obvious actually.
Calling miners centralized is meaningless. Technology development doesn't stand still. There is always someone competing. Companies merge and also split. Your argument is a red herring. The whole energy thing is called work. That's why it's called proof of work. Seems rather obvious actually. |
|
|
|
I am not against the design of nxt.
Okay. So what are you against? That's like saying, "I'm not against the design of Bitcoin, but I'm against Gox hacks, I'm against Satoshi mining solo for a year, I'm against the way mining has become corporate etc... so I think Bitcoin is a scam coin" The lists of reasons Jeff thinks Nxt is a scam are all superficial and have nothing to do with the core technology. Regardless, you tear down rather than build up, be constructive, do something good for crypto. Dude, I never said I hated nxt. I just don't agree with some of the claims about it. It is simply not provably decentralized. You can say the same thing about Bitcoin if you want. I don't care. This is getting to be a religious argument. Nxt proponents that claim it is decentralized are making unfalsifiable claims. There is plenty of room for centralized coins that don't use any electricity. you cant have one with out the other. prove one is correct and from that you can prove the other to be false. find proof before posting again and STOP SPREADING FUD. im not arguing now which is one is a true statement ie nxt is centralised or not, im just pointing out that you are an idiot if you think you can say one is fact and the other is unfalsifiable. and dont say that you have not stated, as if it were fact, that nxt is centralised because you have many times. your an outright hypocrite with motivations that cause you to post such bullsh*t. The original claimant has the responsibility to offer falsification. Popper may not be dead, but this is a basic axiom of science. NXT users claim that it cannot become permanently centralized. They offer no test to verify if it is decentralized. They just say so. |
|
|
|
I am not against the design of nxt.
Okay. So what are you against? That's like saying, "I'm not against the design of Bitcoin, but I'm against Gox hacks, I'm against Satoshi mining solo for a year, I'm against the way mining has become corporate etc... so I think Bitcoin is a scam coin" The lists of reasons Jeff thinks Nxt is a scam are all superficial and have nothing to do with the core technology. Regardless, you tear down rather than build up, be constructive, do something good for crypto. Dude, I never said I hated nxt. I just don't agree with some of the claims about it. It is simply not provably decentralized. You can say the same thing about Bitcoin if you want. I don't care. This is getting to be a religious argument. Nxt proponents that claim it is decentralized are making unfalsifiable claims. There is plenty of room for centralized coins that don't use any electricity. |
|
|
|
|
If you include guests, then Kate Micucci and Riki Lindhome.
|
|
|
|
Long enough to be on the 100th page.  |
|
|
|
|
Is there a relationship between hashrate and bandwidth? If by increasing blocksize and thereby increasing bandwidth, would that eat into the available bandwidth for hashing? For example, if a peta-miner maxes out their bandwidth with just hashrate, then increasing blocksize would lower their hashrate. They would have to buy more bandwidth if it is available. It might favor miners living where there is better internet connectivity rather than cheap electricity or cold climate. It could help decentralize mining by enlarging the blocksize.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be prudent to move Overstock's headquarters to a neutral country after they are denied by the bank owned regulators.
|
|
|
|
Nxt doesn't use checkpoints? I doubt that. are you saying that there is 0 developer centralization in nxt?
Nope, no centralized checkpoints in Nxt. Quoting the wiki: To keep an attacker from generating a new chain all the way from the genesis block, the network only allows chain re-organization 720 blocks behind the current block height. Any block submitted at a height lower than this threshold is rejected. This moving threshold may be viewed as Nxts only fixed checkpoint. and When Peercoin blocks are orphaned, the consumed coin age is released back to the blocks originating account. As a result, the cost to attack the Peercoin network is low, since attackers can keep attempting to generate blocks (referred to as grinding stake) until they succeed. Peercoin minimizes these and other risks by centrally broadcasting blockchain checkpoints several times a day, to freeze the blockchain and lock in transactions.
Nxt does not use coin age as part of its forging algorithm. An account’s chance to forge a block depends only on its effective balance (which is a property of each account), the time since the last block (which is shared by all forging accounts) and the base target value (which is also shared by all accounts). I see what you did there. |
|
|
|
NXT may be controlled by one party. There's no real world way to verify either way. It's like Byzantine Generals using anonymous couriers instead of their own recruits (to borrow a metaphor to use as a simile). The couriers may be trustworthy or they may be spies. No military trained General would ever trust such a courier, yet NXT people trust anonymous stakeholders (or their appointees) to not be bad agents. It's downright irresponsible to develop such a system.
It's funny how so many people claim they are pro-crypto when in fact they are anti-crypto. Guys like cbeast are just in it for the money, it's obvious, they don't care about the crypto movement and only want to protect their holdings (BTC). Jeff is even worse, he should be a supporter of all new projects, yet he does his best to try and discredit anything that isn't BTC related. It's no wonder BTC is down so much. People are working against each other rather then with each other. Nobody is against any projects. Just quit bashing Bitcoin on the Bitcoin forum and maybe you won't look like such a fool. You post FUD as a defense to comments made by others? That seems counter intuitive. And Yes, you are against Nxt, it's obvious you have never used the client nor do you understand how it works, you are just regurgitating false information, which makes you look like the fool. I am not against the design of nxt. I think it should be cloned even more than bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Colored Coins can be used to issue stock with dividends and bearer bonds. I think it's a mistake for O to use counterparty unless they clone it. Even then, there is too much reliance on the blockchain as data storage. A Blockchain.info style online Overstock Colored Coin wallet would be a better way to go for issuing stock. You would have the ease of access of an online wallet, the security of an encrypted wallet, and no risk of accidentally recoloring coins. There would be virtually no costs (just a satoshi) to issuing a share. It currently costs .5 xcp (about $1.50) per share to issue a stock and this will probably rise.
There are regulations regarding the reporting of holders of stocks as well as the reporting of who is behind both orders and executed trades of stocks (this is to monitor and prevent insider trading and to prosecute insider trading when it occurs). Colored coins would prevent any of this reporting from happening. Right. That's what overstock.com is trying to do. I hope they can pull it off. My point is that O can save money with colored coins over counterparty coins. |
|
|
|
|
Colored Coins can be used to issue stock with dividends and bearer bonds. I think it's a mistake for O to use counterparty unless they clone it. Even then, there is too much reliance on the blockchain as data storage. A Blockchain.info style online Overstock Colored Coin wallet would be a better way to go for issuing stock. You would have the ease of access of an online wallet, the security of an encrypted wallet, and no risk of accidentally recoloring coins. There would be virtually no costs (just a satoshi) to issuing a share. It currently costs .5 xcp (about $1.50) per share to issue a stock and this will probably rise.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
