|
241
|
Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-04-14 Moneyness - Why the Fed is More Likely To Adopt Bitcoin
|
on: April 15, 2013, 01:16:47 PM
|
If they do, it crashes their ponzi scheme which they run with U.S. treasury bills.
Why? I may have rred this article quickly, but I don't think they meant the transactions would be publicly broadcasted on internet or anything. The network would be distributed, but it would still be private. |
|
|
|
|
243
|
Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-04-14 Moneyness - Why the Fed is More Likely To Adopt Bitcoin
|
on: April 15, 2013, 12:45:03 PM
|
Bit of a surprise to me. Maybe only certain features are helpful for them. But then again, the economist guy is not known to be any sort of intelligent lifeform, he has proven that over and over.
He's talking about using the underlying distributed ledger (the blockchain) as a method of storing Fedwire trades that are currently centralized. ie. using the technology but nothing to do with using bitcoins or creating a new currency. If they use the idea of gathering transactions in blocks and validating them after a proof-of-work is applied to them, they basically use bitcoin. Not the currency, but the payment system. We imagined they might do something like that very early in this forum. |
|
|
|
|
244
|
Local / Français / Re: Vos propositions d'amélioration du forum Français
|
on: April 15, 2013, 10:02:32 AM
|
Il serait p'tete pas mal de créer une sous catégorie dédiée aux articles de presse sur le Bitcoin au lieu d'un fil unique, un peu comme sur la partie anglophone du forum ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=77.0 ) . Le fil actuel n'est pas vraiment adapté pour réagir aux différents liens, un topic par lien permettrait d'ouvrir la discussion sur l'article en question. Il n'y a pas urgence pour l'instant vu que les articles suscitent peu de réactions. Ceux qui veulent commenter un article peuvent ouvrir un fil dans la section principale en attendant qu'une section dédiée soit créée AMHA. |
|
|
|
|
247
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Would it be fair to say Satoshi is a British Mathematician?
|
on: April 15, 2013, 01:09:12 AM
|
|
I doubt there is such a thing as a mathematician that knows how to program in C++ so well.
A professional mathematician does probably not have time to learn a programming language as complicated as C++.
Also, maths in the bitcoin protocol are not really advanced. It's easily comprehensible for any software engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
249
|
Economy / Economics / Re: = Grand Unified Solution to Lost Coins, Hoarding, Deflation, Speculation =
|
on: April 14, 2013, 09:14:11 PM
|
Hoarding is not a problem. The word merely means saving. Saving is virtuous, not a problem to be "solved". I'm not interested in what "mainstream" economists take, give or do. If you want what they are selling, then please just stick with dollars or the local currency of your choosing, and leave us bitcoiners alone.
I agree, but I'll play devil's advocate and say that then they'll mention the free rider problem. They'll say that since spending is necessary for a healthy economy, by refusing to spend your savings you benefit from a healthy economy generated by others, but you don't contribute to it. The free rider problem is the magic argument to defend any socialist/Statist view of the world, anyway. There was a nice rebuttal of the free rider argument somewhere on this forum I think, which was titled "I am a free rider" or something. The guy was mentioning all the things he selfishly uses all the time without paying one cent for it: Wikipedia, free software, scientific knowledge, public domain art and so on. |
|
|
|
|
254
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: "There can be only 21,000,000 bitcoins" is myth => How to secure the blockchain?
|
on: April 13, 2013, 08:02:01 PM
|
I need a solution.
Well, Satoshi gave us one (transaction fees), but you are not convinced it will work. Or worse: you seem convinced it won't work. That's fair enough, but we have nothing else to give you, I'm afraid. I have a solution. We should attack the other altcoins. And keep attacking if any new alt pops up. Not sure most of bitcoiners will support this though. You're getting excited about nothing. The "problem" you mention won't occur (if it does) until a few decades, and yet you want to "attack" honest monetary competition *now*. Chill out. |
|
|
|
|
256
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: "There can be only 21,000,000 bitcoins" is myth => How to secure the blockchain?
|
on: April 13, 2013, 07:49:08 PM
|
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
We need a plan to secure the blockchain. Miners won't do it when we switch to fees instead of subsidy, they'll just jump to other altcoin. That's what I'm talking about. Then the difficulty will decrease, and other people will mine. Problem solved. Then the difficulty will decrease, and someone will attack Bitcoin. Problem solved (no Bitcoin - no problem). Well, I doubt the difficulty will decrease that much as to make bitcoin being weak. But that's a fair concern, I give you that. The truth is that nobody really knows if the fee-model will be enough to replace the subsidy model. But that's no big news. That's part of the reason why bitcoin is still considered as an experiment, I guess. |
|
|
|
|
257
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: "There can be only 21,000,000 bitcoins" is myth => How to secure the blockchain?
|
on: April 13, 2013, 07:45:28 PM
|
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
We need a plan to secure the blockchain. Miners won't do it when we switch to fees instead of subsidy, they'll just jump to other altcoin. That's what I'm talking about. Then the difficulty will decrease, and other people will mine. Problem solved. Also, you seem very sure of what will happen. It's not so obvious at all. We'll see. |
|
|
|
|
259
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: "There can be only 21,000,000 bitcoins" is myth => How to secure the blockchain?
|
on: April 13, 2013, 07:30:57 PM
|
See? When we add altcoins into the scenario we see that "price" of BTC becomes lower. And we can add infinite number of altcoins. We just need some PR to get people involved.
Of course, but if you add more altcoins, then your reasoning applies to previously created altcoins as well (not just bitcoins). So it's not proportional. Basically, you can indeed add as many altcoins as you want, but they won't have as many supporters and their price will therefore not be infinite. I agree. Anyway we should think about ways to secure the blockchain. And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
260
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: "There can be only 21,000,000 bitcoins" is myth => How to secure the blockchain?
|
on: April 13, 2013, 07:30:11 PM
|
Again, there is a convention in bitcoin which states that the valid chain is the one which has the most enclosed proof-of-work. All altcoins have lower proof-of-work and are therefore dissmissed as inferior by all true bitcoiners. You can create as many altcoins as you want, this will not change.
but isn't that exactly like saying 'bitcoin is inferior to gold because it's not shiny'? The correct analogy is: gold is superior to silver because it's shiny. And it is. The fact that gold is yellow matters a lot for the value of gold as a currency. That's why gold is still more important a currency than platinum, for instance. Yet platinum is more precious. I don't compare bitcoin to gold on such a criterium because it would not make sense. I compare bitcoin to gold by the fact that bitcoin can be transferred directly via internet, while gold can't. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
