|
The current bear market is primarily a correction to November 2013's insane hype bubble. If you analyse the current wave of FUD you'll notice that most of the complaints about Bitcoin are akin to "I thought Bitcoin automatically gave me immortality and the abilitiy to travel through time".
|
|
|
|
It takes 18Gb already, am I right that to move data folder from C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming to another disc or location I should add bitcoin-qt.exe -datadir=D:\ to a shortcut for example (on Win7)?
Thanks.
No need for such wrapper scripts unless you have multiple copies of the block chain around.
Try passing -choosedatadir (once) to set the datadir in the registry.
|
|
|
|
Looks like a disguised ANN for an alt-coin. Something like NXT. Am I seeing it wrong? Does it operate in the Bitcoin blockchain? I see something about that which is confusing.
Sounds really nice though...
Yep, it sits on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. I looks much more like Mastercoin (which I prefer) than Nextcoin. I'd be wary of any alt-coins that market themselves as "fair". |
|
|
|
This is exactly why regulation is a good thing. It's funny how so much of the community wants everything to be completely free and unregulated until something goes wrong, then straight to the cops and the courts! Can't have it both ways people.
Here, you're simply projecting imagined hypocrisy onto your opposition. |
|
|
|
And the further problem is that we need to absolutely trust the guy with the key to that txout.
Yep. In fact, for me, this is the first problem. An effective poison pill would be an effective element of centralisation. I could be convinced to entertain the notion but the term "guy" suggesting a human (laughably corruptible creatures) makes this easy to dismiss out of hand. The fact that this scheme would be wholly ineffective, as you've described, is its saving grace. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin environment was worse when Gox melted down twice in 2011. MtGox was the only large exchange. Almost every thread was about Gox this, debate about Gox that...You've been Goxed again...When will Gox re-open? Gox needs to roll-back the trades after the hack..Gox cannot roll-back the trades......etc, etc. BTC eventually lost over 90% of it's value. What we have now is much better.  Interestingly, this doesn't get mentioned much. I wonder how many people are even aware that the term "goxed" comes from this time. Here's one early use of the term. I don't hack, I don't know how.
But after they Goxed me so many times I wish I took hacking classes.
|
|
|
|
A big thanks to the Core Devs for all their hard work. This is a terrific release! Same problem on (stock) Debian. Bitcoin core doesn't run out-of-the-box: /opt/bitcoin/bin/64/bitcoind: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by /opt/bitcoin/bin/64/bitcoind)
/opt/bitcoin/bin/64/bitcoind: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by /opt/bitcoin/bin/64/bitcoind) Yeah, that was slightly annoying. Debian Stable uses glibc 2.13 (which was enough for the Linux build of Bitcoin 0.8.6). Maybe this is a sign that I should be joining the ranks of those that build from source each time. For now, I'll just use the more recent version of glibc available in Testing. Here's a quick guide for anyone wanting to do the same: Add: deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ testing main
deb-src http://http.debian.net/debian/ testing main
to /etc/apt/sources.list. Add: APT::Default-Release "stable";
to /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf. Run: apt-get update
apt-get -t testing install libc6
|
|
|
|
As a Go player, I'm particularly drawn to #8: At all levels of play the secret of success lies not so much in playing well as in not playing badly.
|
|
|
|
I have thought that btc will eventually be used mainly as a store of value and for large purchases in the future. I think LTC could eventually be used for day to day purchases because of the faster confirmation times, and larger quantity available. I could be way wrong though.
Interesting, I was thinking the faster confirmation times would have the opposite effect. Given a level of technology and of decentralisation, Bitcoin has the potential to scale further than Litecoin due to having less potent synchronisation issues. I'm also fuzzy on this though so don't put too much stock in my thoughts. I don't see how available quantity enters into the equation, not unless and until we've enjoyed a good many more iterations of Moore's Law at least. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this guy recognizes that us wanting him to accept bitcoin donations isnt because of our love for Wikipedia but our desire to have bitcoin's reputation further legitimized. A flurry of activity that slows to a trickle after a month isn't going to convince him to help advertise for us for free.
I largely agree but please note that your "us" does not represent everyone here. Some have donated because they actually want to support Wikipedia. Some are not donating because they are rightly angry about Wikimedia's very anti-liberty statement (quoted above). For me, the former consideration outweighed the latter, but I can respect those in the other camp. However, I despise the "us" you describe; those that are actually trying to manipulate Jimbo into selling out. While I'm confident that he will never be bought, A part of me hopes that he drops the idea of Bitcoin for now out of disgust for these people. TL;DR: Bitcoiners love to buy things; Wikipedia is not something to be bought. |
|
|
|
I guess these types of posts are what comes with more Bitcoin adoption by the masses.
Lol. My favourites are those with degrees in economics. Loans is an absurdity that our societies should not be based on, so that is out of the question as far as I am concerned.
*sigh* |
|
|
|
Trying to force it into obsolete frameworks, just isn't going to work and if they continue to try that, that too will hinder startups because very few can afford the current regulatory requirements.
+1 I concede that for most governments, issuing clear, light regulation would benefit the Bitcoin economy more than trying to shoehorn Bitcoin into current regulatory frameworks. All I'm arguing is the lighter, the better, with no mandatory regulations being best of all. |
|
|
|
A poor regulatory framework is one of the big things holding the entire space back by preventing wonderful new startups, from building the much needed infrastructure. People can say they don't want it and we should find different solutions but I don't see any solutions being proposed. I just see a "lets do nothing and hope for the best" approach.
You have that entirely backwards. Mandatory regulations inhibit startups and consequently retard competition. They can be a boon in the short term, but are a curse in the long term. Meanwhile, market forces are addressing the problem, to the extent that people want, as efficiently as possible, with no coercion. Bitcoin can't grow without access to fiat and that legal access is through regulations. So as much as anyone may not like it, it's going to happen regardless. Actually, it's already happening so, I guess these debates are really just for the fun of it because no one here has a say in the matter. Sorry, I didn't see what you were getting at at first. But still, it's not the inevitable regulations that will make it easier for new Bitcoin startups, it's the uncertainly about exactly how the use of Bitcoin will be regulated in various jurisdictions that is hindering startups. The tougher the regulations are, the more competition will be stifled. |
|
|
|
A poor regulatory framework is one of the big things holding the entire space back by preventing wonderful new startups, from building the much needed infrastructure. People can say they don't want it and we should find different solutions but I don't see any solutions being proposed. I just see a "lets do nothing and hope for the best" approach.
You have that entirely backwards. Mandatory regulations inhibit startups and consequently retard competition. They can be a boon in the short term, but are a curse in the long term. Meanwhile, market forces are addressing the problem, to the extent that people want, as efficiently as possible, with no coercion. |
|
|
|
I too wonder what this seeming collective bad sentiment toward wikipedia is caused by. I think wikipedia perhaps did something that was considered unjust in the past... But I am not aware of what it was.
For a long time, The Wikimedia Foundation was responding to requests to accept Bitcoin donations with: The Wikimedia Foundation, as a donor-driven organization, has a fiduciary duty to be responsible and prudent with its money. The Foundation does not currently accept Bitcoin or other currencies not backed by the full faith and credit of an issuing government. We do, however, strive to provide as many methods of donating as possible and continue to monitor Bitcoin with interest and may revisit this position should circumstances change.
Of course, this deeply upset a lot of bitcoiners. However, I don't think this is sufficient to explain the level of hate here. |
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone has sent these douche's one single satoshi.
Because Wikipedia is great. I don't understand why so many bitcoiners are against Wikipedia, the underlying philosophies are not so different. |
|
|
|
He did say on Reddit though that this wasnt going to influence them into accepting it in general. 21BTC is a tiny fraction of their running costs and he noted that one time donations couldn't be a judge for the future.
Of course. Jimbo has far too much integrity to be influenced in this way. |
|
|
|
I never trust any moral discipline of an exchange. These are things only related to humanity, not capital.
Government regulators are humans too and I sure as hell don't trust their moral discipline. ... without stability and trustworthiness ...
Tiringly predictable faulty assumption: regulation is necessary for stability and trustworthiness. You probably believe in intelligent design too. The real aims of people here are not making contributes to btc, but only earning more money
Take a good, hard look in the mirror. |
|
|
|
The only thing which should be mandatory is a strong password.
If there is to be mandatory "strong" passwords, please don't use arbitrary password schemes such as "Must begin with a letter, contain at least 2 numbers and 2 symbols, and be between 7 and 15 characters long". Instead use an entropy calculator (one that makes use of a comprehensive database of common passwords) and require passwords to reach a certain score. |
|
|
|
sometimes the 2 things above cant work together. revealing all the code allows hackers to learn the layout. pretty much like revealing the blueprints to your house, where the safe is, and where all the security features are. allowing thieves to target a specific area as soon as they gain access to the secured outer doors. i know the open source wont reveal the owners access codes. but allowing hackers to easily find the weaknesses, even in the most secured systems should not be allowed.
opensource policy should be made for client downloads. not server scripts.
id say nothing can be truly hack proof, but ensuring you don't give hackers any advantage helps.
also to note that source code doesn't show what's happening to actual FIAT or actual bitcoins. all it shows are trades using a binary database.. not a block chain or bank account. so the benefits of opensource are not that big.
This is just an argument in favour of security through obscurity. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
