I want to see it touch $250 Comparing the price of altcoins to fiat is broken and wrong. The only thing that matters is if you're better off holding Bitcoin or the alt, and to determine that you compare the alt/BTC exchange rate. Otherwise you'll end up in situations where the altcoin appreciates 10x vs the USD and you think you've done well, but at the same time BTC appreciated 100x so you've actually lost 90% of your purchasing power. |
|
|
|
wow this is a beast :-)
Haven't actually bought it - just made the wishlist. So far the necessity to pull coins out of cold storage to complete the purchase is just enough of a barrier to help me keep hodling. |
|
|
|
Okay, so here's my plan.
I'd like to have a new version out by next week (0.92.2). Given that the change is small and doesn't go by any critical code paths, the release testing process can be relaxed slightly. We'll try to have it out by Monday.
Second, the way I'd like to do it is to put a 4-byte random identifier in the settings file, and use that to for duplicate detection. That identifier will be overwritten/changed every month, so that any thing that would care about trying to match IDs to systems will expire after a month. This allows us to aggregate up to monthly statistics. Anything longer than that we can do without.
Third, we will decouple the announcement stuff entirely from OS/version reporting. We will add an option in File->Settings to completely disable this. Then announcement fetching will send a bare string with no extra metadata. And as suggested, no extra data needs to be sent on subsequent announcement fetches.
Fourth, we will add a command-line option called "--tor" (with an equivalent option in the settings). Then we will adapt the code to use that flag to implement all the standard Tor-based settings: most likely "--skip-announce-check --skip-online-check --satoshi-port=X". You guys will be able to examine what code paths are affected by this setting and make recommendations for us to improve it. (note there is also a "--skip-version-check" flag, but that is no longer used, since we updated the announcement system in 0.91).
I want to reiterate that we do care about privacy -- I've personally been a proponent of security and privacy on these forums for years. And it would be tough to see why we would really care to match up IDs with announcement fetch pings. We're not in the data collection business, no advertising, nothing. We wouldn't know what what to do with it even if we wanted to. We (I) simply made a judgment error when implementing this. Armory is a massive program, and it is respected for being thorough and careful, but we can't get 100% right. One of the nice things about open-source is that people can find issues, call them out, and get it fixed. And that's exactly what happened here. Thanks for your guys' patience and we'll get this fix out there. +1 |
|
|
|
but it seems to be on a downward trend
...just like it did from April to November of last year. If it drops below 0.005 and/or keeps going down while Bitcoin is making a new ATH, then it will be safe to call it dead. |
|
|
|
I won't declare Litecoin dead until it clearly has deviated from its long-term pattern: http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/ltc/btc/btc-e/alltimeThat would mean a BTC mania with no corresponding LTC/BTC mania. It's going to die eventually, the only question is whether or not they get another pump out of it first. |
|
|
|
Ive mentioned it a couple of times on the forum already today, but I have it through very good sources that the majority of large miner coins that are being sold are being sold off exchange for a point or two premium by hedge funds.
A large miner recently confirmed that he had had several calls put into him by hedge funds looking to buy every coin he had. If they are tracking him down, their tracking others down as well. I think this is one of the reason selling has practically dried up relative to what it used to be. Big money is desperate not to have the price run up.
I have been dwelling on this analysis from Windic and of course it makes sense. If the miners go to market with the current volume, then they won't get the price they might from off exchange sales. But with these sellers and the corresponding buyers both off-market, then volume dries up. It also means the price is far more easy to manipulate by dumping a few every time it looks like creeping up and buying them back once the rise has been stopped. This will only change if off-market demand exceeds supply. But at first miners will just have more bidders and may just auction at higher rates, but still off-market. The only way this situation changes will be if the large off-market buyers see the premium asked by miners as excessive and break ranks. And these large buyers are not so stupid. So right now we stay in this equilibrium - large miners will not change it, they get guaranteed sales at market or slightly over and predictable, optimised cashflow. Miners not selling off-market are supplying about what the market wants right now, hence (relative) stability. So... what needs to change? Probably the point where it becomes inevitable that it WILL change. At this point miners may hold and ask a premium - large buyers see the cosy arrangement is not going to last and then they start to break ranks and just land grab on-market. So breakouts are being stamped on - it is inevitable it MUST be what is happening. Once it looks like this amazing accumulation 'party' is over, the shit will hit the fan. The longer it lasts the faster it will turn. And events, of course 'events' can be the calalyst for someone to blink. And so it will begin - we will have our choo choos again. Speaking of pool operators selling coins off-market, I wonder how many of them are robbing their members? I believe Eligius is the only pool that gives participants their payouts via the generation transaction, and all the rest of the pool holds the earnings of individual miners in off-chain accounts. Surely with miners, just like with speculators, there are probably a lot of them content to let the pool hold on to their coins for them. They don't understand that the number they see listed as their balance isn't the same as actually having bitcoins. Surely there must be pool operators who look at accumulating idle balances and are tempted to sell those coins off to the hedge funds who want them so badly. What's the real downside to going fractional on their deposits? When they get caught they can just claim to have been hacked. |
|
|
|
Some have become way too cheap and it's value is not being recognized.
The value of altcoins is zero. As such, it's impossible for any of them to be undervalued. |
|
|
|
If the CB's were to buy up, would this not make the circulating (not in their hands) btc more valuable? "Please don't throw us into the briar patch, central banks!" |
|
|
|
If we want bitcoin to be more popular we just can't tell them to use hundreds of receiving adresses! What you do is tell them to use a client that handles that in the background for them. Users should never need to know or care how many addresses their client is managing for them. Most of the desktop clients get this right - user clicks "receive bitcoins" then the client selects a new one and returns it. After that they just see a balance without needing to know or care what kinds of scripts are attached to the unspent outputs they control. |
|
|
|
I disagree, really a lot of people just *don't care* about being anonymous. The problem is their actions don't only affect themselves. People with bad habits like address reuse harm, not just their own privacy, but the privacy of anyone else they interact with. It's exactly like pollution. I don't see how it's a security vulnerability though. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/google-confirms-critical-android-crypto-flaw-used-in-5700-bitcoin-heist/Treating public keys as single-use protects you from a 0 day vulnerabilities in a way that reusing them does not. |
|
|
|
New answer: wait until some other wallet implements the same features/workflow as Armory, but without the phoning home part and use that instead. |
|
|
|
As a company, we have to have some way to measure our userbase, and we felt this was the least intrusive way possible. And you can opt-out. A more responsible way to do this would be to generate a random unique identifier, instead of one that could be guess ahead of time, and make phoning home an opt-in feature. Your claim that user can opt out is disingenuous - most users aren't going to know how to change a .desktop file to alter command line options. For practical purposes options that can't be configured through the GUI don't exist. |
|
|
|
why would you do that? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0If it ever becomes possible to do so without risking the integrity of the ledger, I would like Bitcoin to be able to discard transaction history. Right now storing 100% of history is the easiest way to safeguard the ledger, but it also means we're subsidizing surveillance. In a perfect world we'd only need to keep a P2P-validated UTXO set and enough history to detect tampering, and let the people who want to store everything forever so they can perform graph analysis pay for that themselves. |
|
|
|
iirc, the utxo set takes up about 75% of RAM required to run a node. as i run 4 nodes myself, it takes a minimum of 1GB RAM to run smoothly meaning 750MB could be estimated for the utxo set itself. that's pretty big to be including in a block... Not in the block, alongside the block. Just like when people merge mine Namecoin the nmc blocks aren't included in the btc blocks. |
|
|
|
i think the UTXO set will have to have a pre-agreed order that will need to be synced amongst all miners in real-time. What if the UTXO set itself is a structure that gets merge-mined with the blocks themselves? |
|
|
|
the question is, where is that point? This is not a question we can answer. The right approach is to build a machine for constantly discovering the answer to that question in real time a.k.a a market. the other thing i don't understand is doesn't the miner who has received a valid header from another miner still have to wait for the tx's themselves to show up so he can remove them from the UTXO set before constructing the next block? Presumably you assume the miners have already seen the transactions before they see the Merkle tree, and they've seen the Merkle tree before they see the header. People who want their transactions processed, and miners who want their headers to propagate, have an incentive to make sure it is so. |
|
|
|
It would also mean that the current incentive to keep block sizes small due to increased orphaning probability would be removed ... and the block size limit debate is back on the table with more urgency. No matter how much they optimize block creation, somebody (not necessarily the same entity that does the hashing) has to build the Merkle tree, and whoever they are they can't process an infinite number of transactions per second. As long as the ability of the network to process transactions isn't infinite, there will be some equilibrium price where the supply curve for transaction processing intersects with the demand curve. It may just be that the price of transaction processing dropped a few orders of magnitude, which is a good thing. The ability to provide the same service at a lower price makes the network more useful. |
|
|
|
nahh 2k+ coins wall up to there
I remember the days when we'd see 10k buys, one after the other. A 2k wall seems so pathetic in comparison. |
|
|
|
Wow, such arrogance... you are a lot nicer in person. Hmm.. when I get the time I will certainly go over all the points made in that article.
What is nicer: staying silent while scams reel in more suckers, or getting accurate information out there so they at least have a chance? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
