|
122
|
Bitcoin / Press / 2013-04-12 Australian Financial Review: Hackers blamed for Bitcoin plunge
|
on: April 16, 2013, 02:09:41 AM
|
http://www.afr.com/p/national/hackers_blamed_for_bitcoin_plunge_xaOWnfSuMJJiCcYrt6adSJBitcoin, a digital currency, fell from a peak of over $US265 to under $US105, in what some say was an attack by hackers looking to manipulate the currency.
It recovered to $US180 by Thursday afternoon. Confidence in the safety of the fledgling unit had been shaken, but some Australian businesses still accept bitcoin in exchange for their products.
It only has value if people agree it does, said CommSec chief economist Craig James. “In many respects bitcoins have much in common with gold,” he said in a recent note to clients.
A bitcoin valued at $US180 would have seemed extremely high not long ago; on January 1, 2013, it was just $US13.
|
|
|
|
|
124
|
Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-04-12 krugman.blogs.nytimes.com - Adam Smith Hates Bitcoin
|
on: April 13, 2013, 07:58:43 AM
|
Proudhorn says: He's right, you know, because the only resource consumed by government currency is paper. This is sadly misinformed. The resources consumed by poorly managed govt. paper currency (which they all inevitably are since humans are fallible) also encompasses all the waste associated with the gross mis-allocation of capital and resources that come about from centrally-planned financing ... it is not just mere few bits of coloured paper expended but the complete screw up of the economic system that needs to be accounted for ... count that up and get back to us. Edit: Patiently waiting for krugman's follow up post titled "Adam Smith Hates Federal Reserve Banking" This is the key point. It is not the electricity cost. (or gas, or whatever) that is significant. It is the miss-allocated resources, from the manipulation of the monetary supply. This is the huge cost to society. |
|
|
|
|
138
|
Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-03-12 IEEE Spectrum: Major Bug In The Bitcoin Software Tests The Community
|
on: March 13, 2013, 11:36:25 AM
|
0.8 wasn't backwards compatible, but 0.7 had the bug that caused the split. I'm totally with Mike Hearn, although I don't see how this requires the hard fork any earlier. It will require a soft fork very soon though, as we want to get back to the 1MB limit, and that can only be done with 0.8.
Completely wrong. 0.8 had the bug, since it didn't imperilment the protocol as defined by the 0.7 clients. The fact that the limitation in the 0.7 clients was unknown and undocumented is besides the point. The absolute thing that 0.8 needs to do is not allow blocks that are considered invalid under 0.7 clients. (no-matter how, or why they are considered invalid). This is was an "Undocumented regression of the 0.8 client" nothing more, nothing less. The fact that it comes about from a "undocumented limitation of the 0.7 (and before) clients" is besides the point. |
|
|
|
|
140
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min)
|
on: February 28, 2013, 02:42:57 AM
|
He is also saying his fork will continue to exist regardless. That's fine, he can use his inconsequential fork as long as he has another node to connect to (even if it is his own). He can also use Open Transactions he is selling as a solution all he likes too.
Except it isn't just me, there are hundreds of users (and owners of bitcoin) like me, who signed on to a system that we thought would have LOWER relative costs to verify in the future. That one day every, even the cheapest computer, could become a full-node. The thing is that these people don't post on the forums about this change. Because they are not arguing FOR a change. They are quite happy with bitcoin is atm. They don't even need to be convinced about the change. Their Bitcoin; the current Bitcoin; the real Bitcoin. Will continue to work just fine. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
supports C++ now. 
