« Le nombre de bitcoins devrait progresser lentement jusqu’à atteindre un plafond de vingt-et-un millions d’unités en 2033. » Je crois qu'il font l'erreur de chercher à partir de quand le nombre de bitcoins par blocs sera inférieur à un. |
|
|
|
|
You just can't explain bitcoin like that. Not seriously I mean.
Schiff just has to read Satoshi's paper if he really wants to "get" bitcoin. There's no real way around it. All other methods of explaining bitcoin are basically wave-handing.
|
|
|
|
Si Noizat a dit ça, il a dit n'importe quoi, c'est 160 bits en moyenne qu'il faut "parcourir" pour bruteforcer une adresse bitcoin
ça n'est pas si simple, je crois. Si tu parcours 160 bits tu es sûr d'obtenir au moins une collision sur l'adresse bitcoin. C'est à dire que tu trouveras une paire de clefs dont l'adresse bitcoin est la même que celle que tu veux "casser". Je ne me souviens plus très bien, mais je crois que ça n'est pas toujours suffisant pour dépenser une transaction. Il existe plusieurs façons de dépenser une transaction, selon le script utilisé. Certains scripts requièrent une adresse bitcoin, et donc là une collision suffit, mais d'autres mentionnent la clef publique, et là tu n'as pas le choix: il te faut trouver l'unique clef privée associée, dans l'espace de 256 bits. Ceci étant, 2^160 reste un nombre très élevé. Comme je l'ai indiqué sur l'article Wikipédia, c'est à peu près le nombre de molécules d'eau sur Terre. |
|
|
|
bonjour à tous
salut et bienvenue, J'ai découvert bitcoin dans un article de Jean-Paul Baquiast du site Automate intelligent. Ahh ça me rappelle des trucs. Je suivais ce site dans le temps. Content d'apprendre qu'ils sont encore actifs. Tu peux nous donner le lien vers l'article où ils parlent de bitcoin, si tu veux. |
|
|
|
|
Well, nobody forbids you to use it.
But really, it seems simpler to use SI prefixes.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be more interested in a debate between Schiff and Keiser, since those two were among the guys I was listening when I was hoarding gold.
|
|
|
|
|
About three days, during which I had been reading Satoshi's paper about ten times.
But to be fair I was thinking about digital currencies for quite some time before that. So I was already very open to the concept.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion if Bitcoin doesn't meet the classic requirements to be considered a currency, then perhaps those requirements need to change.
Agreed, but it's not even because of bitcoin. I've always thought the intrisic value part of what defines a currency is dubious. And it seems to me that, from an anthropological point of view, there are plenty of examples of currencies that were genuinely fiat. In the bitcoin community, we've been using one of them as an analogy for quite time (I think the first one to mention it was Gavin) :
|
|
|
|
It's all great in theory, but not until more work is done to reduce the size of the blockchain growing. Adding all these extra things in will only serve to bloat the chain faster.
You don't need to add extra things. Rather use the same tech to transfer other assets (like stocks, bonds and what not). |
|
|
|
|
J'ai un compte chez bitcoin.de et j'aime bien le concept. Je n'en suis pas sûr mais je crois que le fait qu'ils ne tiennent pas de compte en euro leur permet de passer outre la régulation (ou du moins d'avoir beaucoup moins de contraintes), je me trompe?
|
|
|
|
Une transaction pourrait être faite de l´une des manières suivantes: 1. Quand l´acheteur accepte le taux (demande), il envoie de l´argent à partir de son compte bancaire SEPA au vendeur. Lorsque le vendeur confirme la réception de l´argent, l´acheteur reçoit les bitcoins de notre système commercial sur son compte. Ou lorsque le vendeur accepte le taux de soumission de l´acheteur, l´acheteur envoie son argent sur le compte bancaire du vendeur. Bref c'est comme sur bitcoin.de? |
|
|
|
No wonder. In the pharmaceutical industry, research involves a lot of repetitive process based on trials and error. I'm not surprised it can be easily automated, it requires much more brute force testing than brain power. I add to my TODO list that I have to increase my position on Biomerieux. |
|
|
|
For example in a high gravity environment here on earth a bowling ball weighs 10 pounds in a low gravity environment like the surface of the moon the same ball weighs 2 pounds. Notice that the unit always stays the same regardless of the change in human perception ( a pound is always a pound). We represent the change in perception with a qualifier we say as measure on earth or as measured on the moon.
Price is the qualifier in the system of measurement of value. Price is what represents the change in human perception, but it doesnt have to be. We could say a gallon of water cost 100 joules as measured near the beach or we could say that a gallon of water is 1000 joules as measured in the desert or 10000 joules as measured on the surface of the moon. Saying that a ball weight 10 pounds on earth and 2 pounds on the moon is a misleading vulgarization. It begs the question: what is a pound, then? The truth is that a pound is a unit of mass and it does not depend on the gravitational field. The gravitational force, expressed in newtons, does depend on it, not the mass. As for the energy, it's even worse. If you begin using different definitions of the Joule, you lose the very purpose of the definition of the Joule. You'll invent new units called Joule-beach, Joule-desert or Joule-moon. You just make things more complicated and more difficult to compare to one another. If you want to compare a Joule-desert with a Joule-beach, you'll have to refer to an ad-hoc conversion table. Why would you do that? It defeats the purpose of having a standard unit for energy. |
|
|
|
You must be confusing me with the united States military, which is currently engaged in the systematic killing of random people in many countries around the world in the name of national security. Or Chevron/Texaco who poisoned the central and south american environment and people for decades in order to reap obscene profits. Perhaps you are the poor idiot whining for the limitless power of capitalists to do as they please, no matter the number of people that have to be killed, the number of deformed babies that have to be born, the acres of land that have to be rendered toxic and unusable and the number of communities that have to be terrorized in order to generate profit. You are certainly not harmless however. You're deranged. I'm done talking with you. |
|
|
|
A ressource based economy could be implemented in 25 years. Then we'll talk about it in 25 years, ok? |
|
|
|
What murders must be committed when using the earth's resources for the benefit of all people? You'll kill people that don't agree with you about how resources should be used and/or allocated. Or maybe you'll just kill them for watching smuggled TV programsFortunately, you're almost probably just a poor idiot whining for free money, so you're very likely harmless. |
|
|
|
get rid of money. I don't know why we keep paying attention to this guy who advocates for the end of money and yet has an ad in his signature saying he's selling a motherboard. Why the hell doesn't he give it away for free? Anyway: money is useful whenever people need to trade stuff. Because money is much more efficient than barter, for very well known reasons that are probably not necessary to recall here. So, do you think in your RBE fantasy people won't have any need to trade anything? If so, then sure, money will be useless. But I have very, very hard time imagining a society where I would not have to trade things (unless we're talking about going back to stone age, hunter-gatherer level). If you can, then you probably have way too much imagination. Or you're just completely delusional. But above all: if the utility of money must decrease, this should be translated into lower prices. Ultimately, in a moneyless world, the price of things would be zero. So I'll say it again: just let the prices fell down to zero if that's what the economic reality wants. |
|
|
|
|
Debian GNU/Linux, unstable branch
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
