As do the articles we are still seeing which hate on bitcoin because it is a "Libertarian" effort -- which it is not. Bitcoin came first, Libertarians just see it as conveniently fitting their politics. Cool story. |
|
|
|
The forum isn't HTML 5 though - it's XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Firefox 26 here and I'm also seeing a complete failure of anchor links to resolve. |
|
|
|
This is essentially a gambling platform because at no point does any currency exchange take place.
You think you might've just explained what derivatives are. That's pretty much Wall Street in a nutshell - gambling with other people's money. The worst part is the people involved think they are financial geniuses - masters of the universe - instead of welfare queens. They lobbied for changes to tax laws to create the 401k, then when this caused trillions of dollars to flow into, and bid up the price of, equities they interpreted this as evidence that stock traders were financial gods. It was just the demographic realities of the baby boom coming into their peak earning years though, as well as the tax code shovelling a bunch of money into the markets that otherwise would have been used for something else. Then on the occasions when your bets don't work out, a primary dealer can just borrow unlimited dollars into existence from the federal reserve, or get laws changed to work in your favour at everybody else's expense. Or just get bailed out by taxpayers. It's all a huge scam, which makes the inflated egos of traders particularly comical. |
|
|
|
Now another question. Is it possible to use OT server as a core server (through API?) with mtGox like interface for customers, until moneychanger is realeased or just for those customers who don't want to download it? You'd have to write all that code yourself, AFAIK. |
|
|
|
I didn't understand the selection GHOST selection rule at first, but I think I now get it. I'm really stunned, because it overthrows all the reasons that bitcoin does work. The definition of the Ghost algorithm is basically: "The algorithm follows a path from the root of the tree (the genesis block) and chooses at each fork the block leading to the heaviest subtree." Well, first of all there are only nodes in the P2P network. The blockchain exists because of proof of work. No "algorithm" selects a path. One node doesn't even have information which is the heaviest subtree between block 1 and block 2. That's the whole point. That is really the core of the algorithm. You create blocks, so that information can be distributed. Then proof of work is an offset from that point on. The idea of proof of work and timestamp servers existed 10 years before, but it combines those to, to make it work. If chain selection would depend on other node's proof of work as long as its working on the current block, you get an infinite loop. You can't transmit information instantly. So everything depends on creating a pulse, i.e. the timestamp server, so that all nodes operate on the same basis. As I noted the reference to proof of work, as a kind of CPU vote, indicate equal distribution is key here. Which is why mining pools and ASIC's are the big problems. TPS will be probably easily to solve in other ways. OP does not understand the fundamental problems Bitcoin is designed to solve. OP thinks it's a good idea to ad hard-coded fee rules to the protocol definition. Yeah, this proposal is going to go far.  |
|
|
|
|
Last time I travelled by air I used them to buy the tickets.
|
|
|
|
but thats my posting style  I'm glad we agree on the source of the problem. |
|
|
|
"YYYY-MM-DD SITE - HEADLINE"
Exactly. You're doing "[YYYY-MM-DD] SITE - HEADLINE" It breaks the sorting. |
|
|
|
|
The weekend dips sure are rough these days.
|
|
|
|
|
In the future it could be considered beneficial if outputs to regular addresses are not distinguishable from outputs to contracts.
|
|
|
|
Why would all the customers withdrawing at once be a problem - is it because if they don't "have" BTCs, they don't have database entries representing BTCs either? People who trade on exchanges tend to leave large balances sitting there for a long time. For an unscrupulous exchange operator this is the perfect opportunity to start playing fractional reserves. Suppose you're an exchange operator and you notice that only 90% of the customer deposits never move (as in get withdrawn to an external bitcoin address). You could take half those deposits and do whatever with them (speculate on an other exchange, buy hookers and blow, anything) and your customers won't notice until too many of them try to withdraw and you don't have enough bitcoins any more to comply. |
|
|
|
smells fishy.
You mean fishy like your Litecoin pumping in the Bitcoin Press area? |
|
|
|
I'm talking about one step less though, about illegal manipulation of price. We are seeing unbelievable amounts on naked shorts dropped on the gold market and it would be good to know if something comparable is possible with BTC. There's nothing stopping this from happening right now. Mt Gox, Bitstamp, etc don't trade bitcoins on their order book - they trade database entries that represent bitcoins (and USD). Any of them could trivially create as many database entries as they want to trade with and get away with it as long as not all their customers try to withdraw at the same time. |
|
|
|
for me it looks like [2014-01-03].
so should be correct (for us people). in germany you would write 3.1.14.
Have you read the posting instructions in the stickied topics for the Press area? |
|
|
|
To comment on cracking SHA-2, I suspect most people talking about this don't even understand what cracking a hash function means. First preimage attack just means that mining gets easier. As soon as all the miners adopt the attack as part of their mining process then the difficulty just goes up and the network keeps working. Second preimage attack is the scary one that opens up the possibility of editing history cheaply. |
|
|
|
I just want to understand, if I setup OT server, can it handle MTGox like operation, where there is no actual website for exchange, but OT server with end users using software from their computers... for the simplicity, lets say the service would offer only BTC/USD exchange service on the beginning and lets say we offer an option to actually deposit money the very same way as mtGox (wire transfer etc), is it possible to create such a virtual exchange with deposit option? The thing is that the average Joe needs it to be as simple as possible and the very first thing he needs an ability to have those "assets" in his own wallet, in our case $USD for the beginning... to start rolling... If you're operating a service that accepts customer deposits, then you can issue OT receipts for those deposits instead of just making database entries in your own system. You technically don't actually need to run your own server for that - you can theoretically use any OT server. The advantages of doing this from the perspective of your customers is that it means that you won't have the ability to arbitrarily change their balance, they will will have cryptographic proof of how much you owe them, and they can trade their balances like currency. The disadvantages are that the customers will need to install Moneychanger (or some other suitable OT client) to use your service and Moneychanger isn't finished yet. Also the features that OT receipts provide which your customers will like probably aren't legal to give them when you're issuing receipts for USD. |
|
|
|
Exchanges can manipulate basically anything they want and you've got no protection if you leave your coins on one, at least until voting pools become feature that users demand from the exchanges. Wall Street is getting involved in the exchange market, and as soon as they do be very, very careful. Keep as many of your bitcoins as possible in your own wallet and regularly withdraw your entire balance all at once just to make sure the exchange actually has them. It's virtually guaranteed that they are going to play undisclosed fractional reserve games with customer deposits. |
|
|
|
A links a link, I can't see how it would use db storage.
Finding the most recently read post in a thread is a calculation that has to be performed on a per-user basis. Although that might not be it, because it looks like all anchor links are broken. |
|
|
|
|
Mining hardware has such a short life cycle that it would not be difficult to schedule a changeover.
1. Pick a suitable replacement hash function and announce it. Give the ASIC designers time to prepare new chips.
2. Pick a block where the changeover happens, far enough in the future that everybody has time to get new hardware and have it ready to go when the switch happens.
It could probably be done in a year without too much disruption. Usually hash functions don't fail all at once so that should be plenty of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
