Long story short, the next crisis will not be just a simple "stock market" crash. The entire global monetary system is so intertwined now with the risk being more concentrated, with centralisation of debt and leverage on the central bank balance sheets and consolidation of assets into fewer mega trading banks, that the monetary system as a whole will just freeze up in its entirety. The state of the stock market will be an addendum to the whole sorry saga. It may take a few days, weeks or maybe it will struggle on for a month or so, but if this puppy goes down now, it is not getting back up. The Martingale game being played out by the banksters since Greenspan begun the run by doubling down in 1987 has reached the ultimate conclusion ... the next bet is for all the marbles, the global monetary system has been bet on red, and it is only a matter of time before fate throws up a black.
Your're writing like a witness of the apocalypse...  But I couldn't agree more. The next crash will be of epic proportions. But I still think life will go on after the dust has settled (years or decades). |
|
|
|
In any case the plan is to split the wallet off to a different repository, so that it can be maintained separately. This means you can create a fork with your own (subset of) features, without forking the entire node implementation as well.
This can happen only after SPV functionality has been implemented though. This would also isolate the wallet from potential bugs in the P2P network code (and vice versa), and also means that even if you run a full node, you don't have to have your wallet always online.
This is encouraging. |
|
|
|
Of all the possible security flaws... OpenSSL, a security-oriented library, having a vulnerability in the most fundamental security feature used by virtually everything... is the LAST thing anyone would have reasonably considered to be a risk to security.
Any reliance on external libraries is added security risk. Because Core is financial software the most paranoid security approach should be in place. So where external libraries are not essential they should be avoided. It's much less confusing and makes it easier to use Bitcoin correctly. Coin Control is handy, but inevitably a power user tool that is likely to give newbies the wrong idea. Multiwallet support is unfortunately lagging behind since CodeShark went and made his own wallet instead.  This is Bitcoin Core. You do not need to hide all complexity from the user. I'm accustomed to initiate all payments by myself - I dislike direct debit and similar things, because it gives me less feeling of control. Maybe this is also a question of cultural socialisation, so preference maybe different across countries - I don't know. Regardless, I think a Bitcoin Core user can be expected to know how to copy and paste Bitcoin addresses and type in the correct amount - there is no need for simplification. There can be third party wallets which are "easier" to use. |
|
|
|
If payment protocol was not supported people would be complaining about lack of support for the new merchant integration methods.
Who did complain? If payment protocol is distributed with Core, it should be an optional thing, which the user can decide to activate (by checkbox, whatever). Security is much more important. Edit. imho the dialog introduced in 0.9.0 which replaced the receiving addresses field is not an improvement. It makes things more awkward. (An example of a really good improvement is coincontrol and wallet file selection.) |
|
|
|
Minor updates and bugfixes would be sufficient. Instead there are major releases which are bloated with graphical gimmick that just waste system resources but add nothing substantial. XP entire security model is broken. Microsoft has tried to patch it as best they could but it is like adding suport to a house built on sand. Windows 7 is vastly superior from a security standpoint. There are whole classes of security vulnerabilities which affect XP only, 90%+ of botnet nodes are Windows XP machines. Sure you could use a patch which completely rewrites the core processes of XP but you would essentially be creating Windows 7. There is absolutely no reason to be using Windows XP at this point (or even four years ago). If Windows 7 offered nothing else the inclusion of Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), PatchGuard, UAC, and Protected Mode Internet Explorer make it inherently more secure than Windows XP can ever be. Even if this is true, security can't be a valid explanation for such massive wasting of system resources by later versions. Taking into account all odds I also doubt that Windows 7 is more secure. Who knows which (new) backdoors have been installed by three-letter organizations? It's also not always the best idea to have the newest version (see OpenSSL). Apart from that the probability of attack declines with lower market penetration, because there is less incentive to develop new malware for systems with few users. So if I leave XP I'll go for Linux (a lightweight distribution). Windows XP is completely shit because it has a limit of RAM and physical processors.
Not relevant if you have an older computer. On older computers it's much faster than any of its successors. And apart from newest games you can use all applications. So there's a reason why many businesses haven't updated yet: There are costs but no tangible benefits. Well no. Browsing or downloading with Windows XP is the best way of getting tons of viruses, spywares, trojans & keyloggers.
Watching movie offline is fine.
This depends on your security settings, your behavior and the browser you are using. I'm using firefox with various security/privacy plugins with JavaScript deactivated by default. |
|
|
|
If you ever used the payment protocol (you clicked a bitcoin: link and saw a green box in Bitcoin Core's send dialog), then you should consider your wallet to be compromised.
At least two dozen people (and I was nowhere near the first one) told the devs that using the OpenSSL CA infrastructure for their "payment protocol" coin-tracking fantasies was a (a) crazy, (b) stupid, and (c) risky scheme that involved an utterly massive expansion of the attack surface to include all of SSL and the entire certificate authority ponzi-scheme. What did they do? They ignored common sense. The bitcoin dev responsible for this idiocy is totally incompetent and should step down effective immediately. Oh wait, that happened. Carry on. 0.9 introduced a bunch of bullshit. How the hell can bitcoin magnet link be vulnerable?! If they continue introducing unwanted bullshit features, bloating the bitcoin official client then bitcoin will be dead for me. This has already gone too far. The protocol specifies flawless security (except quantum computing vulnerability). WHY on earth has this flawless security be ruined by eager developers adding features that are not essential to bitcoin protocol? +1 Funny... you posted this.. while I was still typing my reply. |
|
|
|
That's exactly what all those three letter organizations doing within the Bitcoin Foundation, introducing vulnerabilities to the protocol.
Yeah that's a risk that should not be disregarded lightly. As far as I understand the main vulnerability was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 by the payment protocol's reliance on OpenSSL. If I understand correctly the payment protocol was first introduced with Core 0.9.0 (I think Gavin was doing this). I think (and mentioned this in the past) that the payment protocol is an entirely optional feature that is not essential for Bitcoin and should not be included. It can be substituted by third parties. The added security risk by reliance on (more) external libraries is much more relevant than providing a somehow useful, but non-essential feature. |
|
|
|
Nochmal zum Thema Airdrop. Guldencoin hat ja eine Airdrop-Methode angekündigt, die für jeden einfach und fair ist und nicht die Privatsphäre verletzt.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.0Das hat mich natürlich interessiert. Und so funktioniert das ganze. https://guldencoin.com/nl/Anzugeben sind in dem Formular auf der Webseite: 1. Emailadresse 2. Walletadresse 3. IBAN-Kontonummer Zu 3. schreiben sie noch: Nur niederländische IBAN-Kontonummern werden akzeptiert. Wir speichern nur eine digitale Signatur von Ihrer Kontonummer. Ihre Kontonummer ist uns nicht bekannt. Nun ja. Das kann man glauben oder nicht. Setzt halt schon etwas Vertrauen voraus. Wenn es denn funktioniert. Wäre das auch eine Option für Germanycoin? Was meint ihr? Das soll ja wohl ein Scherz sein. Nein, wir brauchen keine Namen, sondern nur die Bankverbindung. Top Datenschutz also. Der nächste Luftnummern-Klon fragt dann wahrscheinlich ein paar TANs ab, um zu überprüfen, ob sie auch aus einem echten Zufallsgenerator eines Kreditinstitutes stammen. Das ganze wird natürlich nur als Hash gespeichert... Die "Vertreter" von Guldencoin sehen auf der Seite aber nun dermaßen vertrauenswürdig aus, dass ich Ihnen alles sofort glaube... Also ich weiss ja nicht, ich finde die IBAN abzufragen ist nich gerade besser als die PersoID. Ich mein was soll man mit einer Personalausweisnummer schon anfangen? Ich dachte meine Ironie wäre deutlich geworden. Ich finde beides völlig inakzeptabel. Besser die Coins unter die Leute schmeissen, ist anonym und hat gleichzeitig Event-Charakter. Also wenigstens haben die Leute für ein paar Sekunden Glücksgefühle... |
|
|
|
|
There is really not much justification for more MS OS'ms. Are there any essential things that Windows 7 and 8 contain, that XP does not?
Minor updates and bugfixes would be sufficient. Instead there are major releases which are bloated with graphical gimmick that just waste system resources but add nothing substantial.
|
|
|
|
So I predict that my statement - "increase in money supply is the primary cause of depreciation of any currency" - will also hold true for Bitcoin (even if the effect is small).
In fact you just can't say that an increase in money supply is the primary cause of depreciation of any currency. It all depends since there are other independent factors at play here...  Why can't I say that? I'm saying in general there is one cause of primary importance and there may be others less important. I even recognized the factor "adoption" as another factor in the case of bitcoin. Well, but this discussion is not very fruitful. So I leave it here. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there will be another bubble with or without the wallstreet guys...
However it's sad to see Bitcoin reduced to the speculation/investment aspect. Longterm, Bitcoin can only succeed if it is used in mainstream. And there is a lot of work to do to accomplish that...
|
|
|
|
Despite the doge cruelty I find it quite funny. Always expect much drama, but ultimately moon will be reached. |
|
|
|
gold [ ] will be king
This is reasonable. US$ will be king
This is reasonable - at least temporarily, because stocks are sold against cash. Longer term I'm not so sure because of inflationary monetary policy. Cryptocurrency won't survive.
This seems not reasonable. I mean, why? Cryptocurrencies will not die without a reason that affects them. A stock market crash does not affect them, because cryptocurrencies are a totally different asset class. A stock market crash is not the end of the world (only for some people that lose more funds than they can cope with). |
|
|
|
Please keep in mind that I'm referring to longer term effects (years), not short term fluctuations. I noted also that current value appreciation of Bitcoin is mainly a result of adoption which must reach saturation first before value appreciation will diminish.
90% of Bitcoin value is sheer speculation (if not more), so it is neither worth not particularly interesting to discuss the effects of Bitcoin's supply increase on its depreciation/appreciation... I do not agree. I find it both interesting and relevant - maybe we will see an effect around the next reward halving... You talk about longer term effects (years), but according to your own logic, the bitcoin supply (monetary base inflation) should turn negative with years (less new coins mined minus lost coins). How come? You are mixing things up conceptually. I was talking about the relation between supply and value depreciation as a longer term effect in general (i.e. for any currency). If Bitcoin doesn't fail, i'm quite sure that adoption will reach the saturation point long before bitcoin supply is so low that the calculation new coins minus lost coins is negative. So I predict that my statement - "increase in money supply is the primary cause of depreciation of any currency" - will also hold true for Bitcoin (even if the effect is small). |
|
|
|
|
These crash predictions based on hypothetical chart analogy are plain BS. I'm not saying there won't be a crash - indeed stock valuations are high - but this has nothing to do with selectively picking a single time period (out of a ton of periods that would fit equally well) just to justify a crash prediction. Every uptrend will end someday.
So will people pour their cash into bitcoin if there is a stock market crash? I'd say it's possible, but most of them will do it after they already have lost most of their investment so it won't matter much.
|
|
|
|
Please keep in mind that I'm referring to longer term effects (years), not short term fluctuations. I noted also that current value appreciation of Bitcoin is mainly a result of adoption which must reach saturation first before value appreciation will diminish.
90% of Bitcoin value is sheer speculation (if not more), so it is neither worth not particularly interesting to discuss the effects of Bitcoin's supply increase on its depreciation/appreciation... I do not agree. I find it both interesting and relevant - maybe we will see an effect around the next reward halving... |
|
|
|
These charts are really useful.
They illustrate nicely that the belief shared by a lot of people that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency is fundamentally wrong. The beauty of bitcoin is that it's inflation rate is perfectly predictable. I think that the predictability of inflation rate is one of the key features which make Bitcoin a reliable currency.
Inflation as depreciation of currency is certainly not what is perfectly predictable. Inflation as increase in money supply (which you are obviously talking about here) is not that interesting in respect to its price and doesn't come across Bitcoin's deflationary nature... The increase in money supply is the primary cause of depreciation of any currency. Therefore I prefer to use the term "inflation" for the former case It has already been proven statistically that bitcoin depreciation/appreciation (its dollar exchange rate to be precise) has nothing to do with its supply (inflation of monetary base)... I doubt that - so where's the proof?  Please keep in mind that I'm referring to longer term effects (years), not short term fluctuations. I noted also that current value appreciation of Bitcoin is mainly a result of adoption which must reach saturation first before value appreciation will diminish. |
|
|
|
These charts are really useful.
They illustrate nicely that the belief shared by a lot of people that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency is fundamentally wrong. The beauty of bitcoin is that it's inflation rate is perfectly predictable. I think that the predictability of inflation rate is one of the key features which make Bitcoin a reliable currency.
Inflation as depreciation of currency is certainly not what is perfectly predictable. Inflation as increase in money supply (which you are obviously talking about here) is not that interesting in respect to its price and doesn't come across Bitcoin's deflationary nature... The increase in money supply is the primary cause of depreciation of any currency. Therefore I prefer to use the term "inflation" for the former case. Bitcoin will exhibit deflationary effects (= its value increases related to other currencies and goods) as long as its adoption increases. Once adoption reaches its maturation point these effects will decrease greatly. If there still remain deflationary effects it will be because other currencies and goods add more supply than bitcoin (= they inflate stronger than bitcoin). However at its very core, Bitcoin is still inflationary as long as more Bitcoins are mined. |
|
|
|
|
Wurden die nicht bereits vor einiger Zeit schon mal leergeräumt?
Grundsätzlich sollte man seine Coins nur so lange wie unbedingt nötig irgendwelchen Exchanges anvertrauen. Leider vergisst man das aus Bequemlichkeit schnell mal. Insbesondere, wenn es um Kleinbeträge von x-verschiedenen Altcoins geht, für die man jeweils ein eigenes Wallet installieren müsste.
|
|
|
|
Now that we have all of the above, I consider the pure existential risk almost gone. There are enough smart and talented people who now understand the potential and benefits of bitcoin that ecosystem development will continue, more innovation will happen, and traction will increase. Sure, price can do virtually anything on top of that dynamic, but over the longer haul, increased traction/adoption/mindshare yields increased price.
So whatever happens to price in the short/medium term, I'm considerably less "worried" than in late 2011. I think we're very much over the mindshare hurdle, where we do now have sufficient critical mass for the ecosystem to continue to grow over the longer-term. I said the same thing after the April 2013 crash...
I agree that overall risk has constantly diminished, but I would not say that existential risk is almost gone. There is a lot of risk with the software (still in beta) and the network. The whole system ist quite complicated and may contain points of failure that pop out unexpectedly. Also bitcoin is still far away from mass adoption due to usability issues. So there is no assurance that bitcoin may not fail in a culmination of sudden events that no one had on his radar. However bitcoin is a great innovation that is worthy to be believed in. So hold on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
