|
I think it's conceivable that 1 bitcoin in the future could have the same purchasing power that $1-10 million has today, with certain assumptions regarding what a world economy would look like with Bitcoin as a universal currency.
|
|
|
|
Your post is not only Hypocritical it's "counter productive" as well. You are adding insult to the OP on top of your Hypocritical stand with the "whoring out" the signature space. I notice yours is very full by the way. Your "1 Liner" doesn't contribute to this thread at all and some would see it as "Spam" or trolling/flaming. Since you brought it up, my signature pre-dates all the paid campaigns and I've never added to my mine because somebody is paying me. In addition, everything in my signature is about providing my contact and reputation information, with the addition of LocalBitcoins as an encouragement for people to support censorship-resistant methods of currency exchange. But thanks for asking. |
|
|
|
Some people have professional accounts where they have to withold a certain standard, for example if you own a business and have strong political opinions, you wouldn't want your opinions to effect your sales, so that is a reason to legitimately own another account. That's easily solved by having different account classes (business vs personal). |
|
|
|
If the post was deleted I have no record of it happening. This is my main issue there is no information for what I did wrong therefore no proof I've done anything wrong at all....
The fact that you consider this to me getting lucky is very saddening to be honest. I don't know how this type of action can be accepted by reasonable people. I have no clue what I've done wrong no way to have the issue overturned and I'm some how considered lucky in your eyes?
You could always try being a productive member of the forum without whoring out your signature space. |
|
|
|
Satoshi is the creator of bitcoin and one of the founders of the foundation If Satoshi is one of the founders of the foundation, then he can very easily prove this by signing a message with the appropriate PGP key. Anything less is rumor and hearsay. |
|
|
|
What features would you like to see on a LocalBitcoins-style website? The only feature you could provide that would make your site more useful than LocalBitcoins is a larger user base. Good luck with that - why would anyone want to move over to your site if all the customers are on theirs? |
|
|
|
That's technically infeasible. Come tell us, how would you implement that?
It's not feasible if the forum is to remain open to the public. You could achieve a close approximation in an invite-only forum. If every member has to be invited in by another member then the list of accounts would form a tree. Then you have a policy wherein if any account is ever determined to be a sockpuppet account, then the tree is pruned (mass bans) starting with the account of the person who invited the sockpuppet. You could use a wide range of heuristics to scan the account db for likely duplicates and flag suspicious ones for manual review. |
|
|
|
How about this? Mark as read, ignore and move on while some of us discuss this, learn a little?
IN OTHER WORDS STFU? The first thing you need to learn is how to check the date on the posts you reply to. |
|
|
|
What he says is factual but he politicizes it. That's why you shouldn't listen to him. He's a doom and gloomer w no valid proposal to fix the problems he bitches about. Typical cynic that tries to rile up controversy You've clearly never listened to any of his work, so why are you talking about him as if you have? |
|
|
|
i wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are paid trolls here to discredit TBF as a side channel attack on Bitcoin.
That particular form of attack wouldn't be possible at all if there was no TBF to discredit. I do believe that fact, and the likelihood of just such an attack, was noted by more than one person when the idea was first floated. |
|
|
|
I may choose to ignore the laws I disagree with. But when I'm in court that is not going anywhere. Obviously if you end up in court you're doing it wrong. See this thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/598061/it's likely that, if certain employees of the state discover the freelancer offering his services to foreign customers without their permission, they will attempt to punish him. Once translated, then you can see the relevant question is not "does the freelancer need a license to export?" but rather, "If the freelancer exports without permission, will he be punished?" Once you're asking the right question, then it's a matter of breaking the problem down in to manageable pieces: - What methods do these bureaucrats have to detect when someone is exporting programming services without their permission, and how effective are they?
- What countermeasures can the freelancer employ to avoid detection, and how effective are those countermeasures?
- Once a bureaucrat has determined that he wants to punish someone, what methods of punishment can he employ to accomplish this?
- What methods exist via which the freelancer can reduce his attack surface regarding vulnerability to punishment, and how expensive are they to employ?
|
|
|
|
By this time next year it may be all over and MasterCard's smart approach to lobbying could put them in the position of directly writing the laws that you will obey or be fined and arrested for rejecting. It is very common for lobbyist to write laws these days. The RIAA and MPAA were in the same position of writing the laws that you will obey or be fined and arrested for rejecting for over 10 years. Yet The Pirate Bay is still online. Unless we organize and show a united front our opinions are worthless to lawmakers. You're begging the question of whether or not the opinions of lawmakers are worth anything to us. If it takes Mastercard a year to get some new legislation through, the technology needed to circumvent those laws will have a year to develop. |
|
|
|
|
I see no evidence that any of the projects you mentioned even have a useful definition of what "decentralized exchange" means, much less a plan for creating one.
Most of the time, when someone uses the word "decentralized" it means they don't actually know what they are trying to achieve.
|
|
|
|
Why do people think they know what is going on in Satoshi's mind, and assume bitcoin was his libertarian scheme to overthrow the fed? What if he was just a genius coder who launched an awesome payments system and got rich, staying anonymous to not get robbed.
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/ |
|
|
|
|
There is no need for a Bitcoin Foundation, or anything it does.
Yes, this includes funding development of the Satoshi client.
That client is just one of several software projects that implements the Bitcoin protocol, and if any of the clients ceased to exist Bitcoin's existence would continue uninterrupted.
|
|
|
|
Attacker may be able to defeat OP_CHECKSIG, which hashes transactions before signing
If the hash_type in signatures to select an alternative hashing function. If SHA was broken, nodes could switch to RIPEMD instead. I think this has to be a hard fork though. You have to run at least one of the SHA-256 signatures. Maybe certain hash types could consume 2 signatures. If the MSB is set in a signature, it means the two signatures are provided. I'd suggest a hard fork where you make OP_CHECKSIG consume an additional stack item which represents the algorithm type. This would make the future upgrades which add new signature types less disruptive. At the same time, make the clients use P2SH by default so that the extra space the new parameter consumes stays out of the UTXO set. |
|
|
|
It sure looks logarithmic when you make the distance between 1,000 USD and 500 USD really small. Widen that out a bit and it doesn't look like shit. Idiots always posting FUD graphs rofl.
it is logarithmic, the distance between 500 and 1000 is the same as the distance between 1 and 2 and 1000 and 2000. it's a legitimate chart. Take a look at iluvpie60's signature. You've got to translate your explanation into a language he can understand. Like this: Bro, do you even math? |
|
|
|
If you could trust nodes voting you wouldn't need mining to begin with. There is no guarantee that all nodes know about all transaction at any point in time. There is no guarantee nodes will learn of transactions with any guarantee on timeliness or nodes will learn of transactions in the same order. The composition of the network is also continually changing
The network isn't a single unified block of memory it is a coalition of independent systems. If we could trust anonymous decentralized nodes to "vote" in a secure manner they could simply agree on the ordering of transactions. You wouldn't even need blocks and you certainly wouldn't need mining. The unresolved problem is preventing a sybil attack. Satoshi saw that in a pseudonymous decentralized network, where an attacker could cheaply create thousands or even hundreds of thousands of nodes, that no vote based on 1 node = 1 vote could be trusted.
Proof of work is the method to force a consensus on the network to create a canonical ordering of transactions. If nodes could reject blocks based on "incorrect" ordering then it would imply they already know the canonical ordering. If they know that, they you don't need mining to begin with. "I found a way to solve the BGP without solving the BGP" is going to be the next generation's perpetual motion hoax. All those people who make YouTube videos where claim to run a portable generator to electrolyze water which they use to power the generator engine? Soon they'll all switch to inventing new scamcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
