well you can't make a per second statement, since, in theory, their could be thousands of blocks in one second.
and because all of the transactions in one block get processed at once, it's hard to say how many transactions per second there are.
I guess you are looking for something like this:
"How many transaction fit in one block ?" and "Is there a maximum of blocks per second in the network ?"
Isn't there an average number if blocks generated per unit time that will roughly remain constant over long enough time periods? (as difficulty adjusts to compensate for changes in network computing power) This answer, combined with "How many transactions can fit in one block ?" should get us close to the answer we're looking for. edit: according to the FAQ The average rate of block creation in the whole system is 6 / hour. So the rate is 6*(max transactions per block) per hour. |
|
|
|
Aside from selling one's bitcoins and buying them back later, is there a way to profit from a dropping value of Bitcoin?
why would you ask that? Because I was responding to a post where someone challenged people who believe Bitcoin will drop in price to speculate on such an event, but to my knowledge, it isn't possible to do so. And yeah, there is no way that someone can start writing puts options contracts - not enforceable in court, and it's too easy to start over with a new identity on here. Nobody here uses their real name anyway. |
|
|
|
Now, I used Google only as an example, as I have no indication they actually have such plans. The point is that the risk of such a scenario is not zero, and I reiterate my initial point that speculators may not be pricing it adequately.
You don't have any evidence to suggest the speculators are not pricing it properly except your feeling about the matters. If you're right, why don't you speculate? Aside from selling one's bitcoins and buying them back later, is there a way to profit from a dropping value of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
The problem with banning "illegal goods"...
The other problem with banning "illegal goods" will arise if Bitcoin itself becomes illegal. But in the meantime, I think Sirius' policy is workable. I find it highly unlikely that Bitcoin itself will be declared illegal in the US or any other similar nation. What might happen is it will attract IRS attention and lead to a crackdown on people who make undeclared income in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If and when BTC becomes more widely accepted, I'd consider starting a physical currency that is pegged to bitcoins.
Fractional reserve banking, in other words. I'm not criticizing though. It's inevitable, and it's harmless provided the level of backing behind the "pegging" is honestly disclosed. It would not be fractional if each physical coin was backed by one digital coin. |
|
|
|
|
I just hope they don't start cracking down on the sale of gold through a certain purple-peace-signed Internet classified webpage.
|
|
|
|
Where can I trade Bitcoins for Crude oil?
Nowhere. Even Europeans have to buy oil inUS$ due to the Bretton Woods Treaty. The Russians & Chinese would buy/sell oil in gold or their own currencies in a heartbeat if that wouldn't get them sideways with the US fed. Weren't the Bretton Woods agreements pretty much finished when Nixon closed the gold window in 1971? |
|
|
|
|
Being a good investment, or at least a stable one, is a requirement for something to be a good form of money. (At least when it's not legal tender). Few people would voluntarily accept something as money when it has what they consider to be an unreasonable risk of losing its value.
|
|
|
|
regular currency doesn't really do this, yes they have sub dollar denominations but that's because they know that those denominations will not continually get smaller. There is nothing smaller than a cent. There is also nothing larger than the dollar.
Since bitcoin will continually be used in smaller and smaller denominations we would continually have to come up with new names for them, which is pointless.
Is there another name for 1Billion dollars? No, and for the same reason there shouldn't be another name for anything under 1btc.
Regular currency is inflationary, and they do change denominations: There are no longer half-cents like there used to be, and people are talking about getting rid of the penny more and more lately. Bitcoin is deflationary (as seen by its climb in price), so I think the opposite would be a good idea. If Bitcoin got to the $10 USD per BTC point I would think it would be prudent to move the decimal point to keep it more conveniently sized. Or, we could just use the standard metric prefixes: Millibitcoins, microbitcoins, etc. Fun fact: The US money system was originally based around five units: the cent, dime, dollar, eagle, and union. Each one worth ten times the previous unit. Union coins never ended up being actually minted for circulation. |
|
|
|
That won't make everyone else accept the change. No one who already has BTC will want it to go down in value. It makes no difference what people want, it will be coded into the system at that point. It's the same as the Fed. Res. printing money. As of now there is no mechanism to force people to upgrade to a newer, less desirable version of Bitcoin. the scenario you describe would require that people controlling over 50% of the network computing power adopt the newer, different software. |
|
|
|
IMO: BTC > Gold
That's quite obvious to me too. I think the people who don't believe in this either aren't geek enough to understand bitcoins (so they lack trust), or they just worship gold without really understanding why this noble metal was such a good money for so long. If you understand what are the features that make gold useful as money, you'll easily that bitcoins upgrade each one of these features, by orders of magnitude in some cases. Bitcoin is still unproven. This site itself still warns that it's experimental beta software. There are fears that a bug will be found flooding the market with fake bitcoins, or that a new, better online currency will be introduced, or that someone with enormous computer resources will attack the network. All these might make everyone's Bitcoins worthless. These reasons are why I, and a lot of people, don't put more than a small amount of net wealth into Bitcoin. Gold, on the other hand, has 6,000 years of history of keeping its value. |
|
|
|
|
What is the intended purpose of the dark pool on Mt. Gox? Is it just a perk for people with lots of money?
|
|
|
|
because it means people are hoarding.
Holding and buying are two entirely different things. |
|
|
|
mtgox has low volume- everybody buying up
How does "low volume" lead to the conclusion "everybody is buying" ? The observation "low volume" should lead us to conclude that very few people are buying. |
|
|
|
If you ban illegal goods here, another place for them will appear.
I don't have a problem with such things. I only have a problem with them attracting bad attention to Bitcoin and causing its greater mission to suffer. I don't care if they are on another website. I just don't think they should be on the official Bitcoin website. Bitcoin is too important to get slowed down by easily-avoidable police attention. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming most members of the Bitcoin market are well informed, current prices already take into account future estimates of increased difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Gresham's Law only applies under legal tender laws.
|
|
|
|
The exchange rate needs backing value to be real.
Just out of curiosity. Can a currency be backed mostly or completely by another currency ? Has anything like that ever happened in history ? I don't know, I'm seriously asking a question - this is not sarcasm or anything. I dont understand fully, but I've read that several other countries back their currency with the US dollar. So it is possible for a currency to be strong without the need for a lot of goods to be traded with it ? I suppose, if the currency is backed by another currency that does have a lot of goods traded with it. |
|
|
|
|
I presume that transaction fees will be rewarded in greater amounts to people who contribute greater processing power?
|
|
|
|
The exchange rate needs backing value to be real.
Just out of curiosity. Can a currency be backed mostly or completely by another currency ? Has anything like that ever happened in history ? I don't know, I'm seriously asking a question - this is not sarcasm or anything. I dont understand fully, but I've read that several other countries back their currency with the US dollar. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
