|
Is a simulation not real? It has to be simulated in some kind of reality?
If you pinch yourself, does it feel lika a simulation?
|
|
|
|
|
It could also be interpreted as 78% think that Bitcoin is currently way undervalued and will not sell all their coins at this time.
Which is a positive thing since it gives it better longterm value and means that it really is way much more stable than what people think.
|
|
|
|
Looking at this with gametheory.
Is there another way to look at it? We already said with a proper deposit/transaction structure you can alleviate the problems, enough to make this a powerful tool in practice. But they are hardly solved when: - You need to trust the other party not to lose their key. - The seller may not have available funds to use as deposit (if the deposit is large). - Even if it's not in their best interest, some people will still try to blackmail, and some people will still give in to it. I've made arguments similar to yours in the past and I agree, I just disagree with the characterization as "solved". Well agreed, solved was a to strong word. But I believe it will be "solved" for the majority 99% of trades. For blackmailing, there should be better ways to blackmail, I might be wrong but I think it will with time become very unusual to use that kind of transaction to blackmail. The lost key is a very small problem. Would it be possible for both parties to somehow prove they have the key before and during the transactions to the adress. If the seller loses the key he should still send to product. It would be almost identical to the seller losing his own money after receiving them. If the buyer loses the key he owns the seller his money back. Both can be proven in court if identities are known. Brainstorming I can imagine some kind of rescue/backup transaction that would "unlock" and rollback the first transaction if certain conditions were met which would confirm from both parties that a rollback would be ok. I might be wrong but I dont see Bitcoin as the system for that. |
|
|
|
|
With Bitcoin you do not have to leave out you phone number to recieve a payment.
This means that you can recieve payments from anyone on the internet without giving out your number to everyone.
|
|
|
|
"In a country like Norway, which is by no means a lawless country, something like 70 percent of all the money in circulation is only used for criminal purposes," Birch said That's can't be accurate. 70%? What a joke. What a load of propaganda BS. This just takes the price. ROFL. |
|
|
|
In order to become rich all you need is a pen and a paper. If you can write good books, movies, etc you can become rich. If you can play soccer, run or box you can become rich. If you can sing like a star, you can become rich. If you can entertain with your humor, you can become rich. If you can paint. All of these are things you can learn or do for free. |
|
|
|
|
With a blockchain.info you can instantly send to anyones:
email
sms
facebook
Oh and also the small added benefit of owning part of the only currency that is truly international and can increase hundred times in value over the years.
|
|
|
|
Nice table. The main problem (as has been discussed for example here) is blackmail - instead of doing step 5, trader B can tell trader A "I'll only give you the key if you pay me 50 BTC!". Assuming the threat is credible, A will have to part with 50 BTC to rescue the other 50. Even if most people won't give in to blackmail, if B's deposit is small he can try it on N people until he succeeds. This is alleviated if B's deposit is larger, but then A can blackmail him in step 6... You can make it work (with carefully balanced deposits and more sophisticated transactions), but it's not trivial. For an alternative mechanism, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation - it involves a 3rd party arbiter, but the arbiter cannot steal (or lose) the funds without colluding with one of the parties, as long as the traders agree it doesn't matter what happens to him. This is easy to solve for many situations. Trader a increase his sum that he can lose. And they both takes turn adding Bitcoins to the two part adress. A ads 0.2 Btc. B ads 0.2 Btc A ads 1 Btc B Ads 1 Btc. etc. If this can be automated it would be great but its not needed. Now. Trader A not only do not have anything to win by blackmail. But he even have coins to lose from doing Blackmail. Now both have something to win by making sure the deal goes through. Both have something to lose if the deal does not go through. Problem solved. No, it doesn't solve the problem. Being gradual maybe solves a problem with the OP's specific implementation (avoidable with better transactions). The hard part is what happens after everyone finishes depositing. Every party can hold the other ransom - with a successful blackmail he gets both his deposit back and some of the other party's. Having a large deposit means trying to do blackmail is more expensive, but also that more can go wrong. It pretty much completely removes all incentive to blackmail as if one try to do so they will now risc the other party getting angry and thus, now instead risc losing their own money. Looking at this with gametheory. Knowing this, the other party will have no reason to let themselves be blackmailed. Because if he does, how will he know he will get his money back? He cant know that. In fact the odds is he probably wont, since the first party by blackmailing has showed to not be trustworthy. So the best option for him is to just dont care about the blackmailer and walk away. Over several attempts to blackmail will thus in the long run lose his own money. Its simply just better to not waste/risc effort trying to blackmail in this situation. This basically solves the whole trading on internet problem and getting screwed for free, for the first time in the entire history of human trade. |
|
|
|
Nice table. The main problem (as has been discussed for example here) is blackmail - instead of doing step 5, trader B can tell trader A "I'll only give you the key if you pay me 50 BTC!". Assuming the threat is credible, A will have to part with 50 BTC to rescue the other 50. Even if most people won't give in to blackmail, if B's deposit is small he can try it on N people until he succeeds. This is alleviated if B's deposit is larger, but then A can blackmail him in step 6... You can make it work (with carefully balanced deposits and more sophisticated transactions), but it's not trivial. For an alternative mechanism, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation - it involves a 3rd party arbiter, but the arbiter cannot steal (or lose) the funds without colluding with one of the parties, as long as the traders agree it doesn't matter what happens to him. This is easy to solve for many situations. Trader a increase his sum that he can lose. And they both takes turn adding Bitcoins to the two part adress. A ads 0.2 Btc. B ads 0.2 Btc A ads 1 Btc B Ads 1 Btc. etc. If this can be automated it would be great but its not needed. Now. Trader A not only do not have anything to win by blackmail. But he even have coins to lose from doing Blackmail. Now both have something to win by making sure the deal goes through. Both have something to lose if the deal does not go through. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
What about if you lose power? Some natural disasters knock out power for months.
Than there are many better things to have than gold and many other things to worry about. Bitcoin will still work in the rest of the whole world, once power comes back you will still have your Bitcoins or if you go to a place that have power you can use them. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin. The currency of the internet
|
|
|
|
|
The best thing would just be to act like a good politician.
"The Bitcoin community will unite, and we will put all of our strength into finding these hackers.
Make no misstake, this it the top on our agenda."
Then do...Nothing
But I really see the extortion as Bitcoins weakness. If its possible.
My understanding was that it would had been foolish to do something like this.
Because with enough resources something like this would be very very hard to pull of.
And maybe it really is.
As I earlier wrote that when a kidnapping happens, Bitcoins risc being made illegal atleast in a few countries, based simply on public opinion.
Noone will react, because they understand jack shit about money and Bitcoin.
To many of them its probably just a scam.
|
|
|
|
well the thing is, as a currency, hes right, bitcoins are not currency, they are commodities. however that does not mean that they are anything even remotely related to a scam in its entirety. What is the banks "money" then? Not currency but credits? |
|
|
|
I believe it had been calculated because of the deflationary component limit of 8 decimals...
maybe it was a subjective assumption?
The number of decimal places is arbitrary it can be expended to 12 or 20,000 if necessary. Yeah. That would be the standard wisdom around here, except that making it happen practically ... not sure it's that easy. I haven't actually seen an in-depth analysis of what it'd take to move all values in the bitcoin system to - say - 128 bits instead of 64. From what I've seen, even today, it'd require quite a bit of work and testing to make this happen smoothly. And when (if) it ever becomes necessary, the whole bitcoin ecosystem will have grown so large that we'll have another Y2K on our hands. If this time comes it wont be a problem like the y2k bug. They didnt think the computer systems would be running for so long... But more like ipv6? Ooops my misstake...Calculating, only one more month! But I will be very nice and buy all your coins for $0.0001. |
|
|
|
The Bitinstant guys are helping Romney by offering this. I am sure they will expect a seat in his administration for this if he wins.
Aren't you involved in BitInstant? The Bitinstant guys are helping Romney by offering this. I am sure they will expect a seat in his administration for this if he wins.
It is a very nice gesture, unless the entire thing turned out to be a hoax. If true, it's a godsend to them. But how bad does it sound, to introduce bitcoin to them for most likely the first time, and they have to shell out $1M to pay off a ransom, and a bitcoin company is offering to waive the fee for converting the ransom money? lmao Exactly. It's ridiculous and shady as hell. I don't know why they're so desperate for attention that they'd want to be involved in issues of national security and terrorism. So you are saying that you would rather had other chinese or russian hackers sell the info to Russians. So the Russians could use it to put pressure on your maybe President in closed door meetings? That is what I call a weakness and my guess is that many politicians all over the world do have them and thats why they are supported, by those who knows shit about them. So they can get secret favours. If these hackers really have something, they are giving you a chance to get it before it can be used to cause damage. Its like disarming a ticking bomb. |
|
|
|
|
Did someone have the Bitcoin adresses?
The hackers did one misstake, should had posted a description to the adresses so that everyone in the world could followed the drama.
|
|
|
|
|
The most interesting thing is that this opens up for the whole world to send Bitcoins.
Hell even Putin could get some Bitcoins and affect the whole outcome of the American presidential election and thus the future of the world (somewhat.)
Amazing thought...
|
|
|
|
|
Well if they have the information they claim, in one sense they are doing the public of the USA a favour, in letting them decide if they want to know their coming presidents tax behaviour. But maybe not only the public but the whole world.
Because if it is immoral behaviour. You could argue that the voters have a right to know who they are voting on.
Would you not want to know what kind of person you really are voting on to run your country?
So in one sence they have made a democratic decision of that issue.
Well not really a democratic system, since it costs money. But he do have the money and even he himself can pay if he think its important. Though that would reveail him as trying to hide something or maybe not...Since Bitcoin is quite anonymous.
But that is also the way the US have made their system.
The president with the most money backing wins, so in a sence they have made a parody of the system.
Unless its a fraud. Which I think its not.
If he have something to hide, he should be nervous.
Because right now someone could in the name of the best interest of the US people or even the world, pay to see the truth about someone who could be named the president of one of the worlds most powerful countries in the world!
And this is not a power the only the American have but the people of the whole world.
Imagine what would had happened if Hitler would had been revealed as a Maniac before he was elected?
This even is so big that it acctually have the power to change the entire history of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
