Please note that 51% attacks don't destroy cryptocurrencies, because they are simply agreements between a number of people. If a large enough number of people supported a certain cryptocurrency, even while starting up, it could gain traction even with external forces engineering hash power attacks until no longer effective. Granted, this isn't an ideal or smooth progression of a crypto coin starting up, but it is possible.


Don't forget about Novacoin, which has the most traction of an alt-coin next to Litecoin (now ~$3.90), which I believe is because it's a combination proof of work and proof of stake coin, which of course dramatically reduces the chance of successful 51% attack.


Why would you think Litecoin's scalability is four times worse? Aside from a few changes it's the exact same thing as Bitcoin. It actually has more scalability than Bitcoin right now because blocks occur 4 times faster, meaning the number of transactions waiting in between blocks don't build up as large. With Bitcoin the limit is 1MB worth of data every 10 minutes; with Litecoin it's 1MB worth  every 2.5 minutes. I think you have it backwards. However, I believe it's a good idea (though not crucial) to raise Litecoin's block size too, to say 10-15 MB, while allowing Bitcoin to be uncapped. That way we can see, and the market appreciate, which works best in practice.

As for level of support I think you're underestimating it. Remember Litcoin comes into circulation 4 times faster than Bitcoin. That means a $4 price point for Litecoin is the same valuation as Bitcoin not at $4, but at about $16. That's a lot of people holding litecoins and growing every day. Also remember support levels can change. When I wrote the post I linked above there were many skeptics in that thread, and what could I say? Litecoin was at $0.04 after all.


I agree.



I believe here you're talking about chaum banks, which I still haven't fully considered. However, while we share strong believe and support in off-chain tx solutions I believe many ways for that to develop exist.

Nice! 

Bitcoin is growing, and not by a little.

Peter, I appreciate your tenacity as causes need someone to champion them. However, I think you are overly concerned on this. You've been on this forum a while so you should know I take the grassroots, decentralized position. I even threatened to work as hard to undo the support I may have drummed up for Bitcoin as I did fostering it when I thought Bitcoin Foundation might gain uncontrolled centralized power.

I was glad I could back away from such a position. This was when I realized there could in fact be a check on future power because free markets work as good strict regulators. All that was needed was a viable market outlet valve for the market to express dissatisfaction with how things developed regarding Bitcoin Foundation and Bitcoin in general. Alternative coins had already shown up on the scene (by the wisdom of the market), though none had any real traction except Litecoin which was near $0.04.

I wrote a post explaining why I now felt Bitcoin Foundation proposed no threat to the idea of Bitcoin, as long as viable alternatives existed in the market, and that I would work to further establish alt-coins like Litecoin in the market for that reason.

At the time I believed there were many benefits to such a set up and the block size issue which developed later is a perfect example. While I actually share your concern for infinite block sizes I can rest easy knowing that even if a path taken by Satoshi's Bitcoin is ever unworkable there now exists viable alternatives (Litecoin is now at ~$4) which can do things differently yet still serve the crypto-community. Make sense?

Well, you're sort of mixing things.

It's possible to receive some funding reward (usually in the form of whatever coin you're mining) if you participate in a mining pool without actually solving a block yourself.

It's the same concept as lottery pools for state lotteries. You as an individual can contribute your resources (dollars) to a pooled pot of tickets. If your lottery pool wins you receive a share of the winnings, though you technically don't own a winning ticket yourself.

As far as Bitcoin itself goes if you don't solve any blocks you don't get anything, no fees, no block reward; just as with a state lottery if you don't give them a winning ticket you get nothing.

Any transaction fee which accompanies a transaction goes to the miner that solves the block which includes the transaction.

No I don't think a trading site should do that, at least not without telling customers before signing up of such plans.

I understand the reasoning behind this though - let people good at trading capitalize on their skills in other ways.

There was a web site I liked to look at, though not participate in, called StockJungle.com which I thought was pretty cool. Unfortunately the site itself closed as they tried to start a mutual fund with picks from members. I think that was the wrong direction. They had what you describe, an index of members with the best and worst trading records. There was one member called GreatSage that had a portfolio up something like 130% in less than a year. I think StockJungle should have sold subscriptions to those member's picks, which were not traded but simply logged on the site.

The closest thing to that now is probably the Motely Fool Caps community.

There was a good thread posted here about calling transaction fees bids as that's more accurate. How can you call something a fee when you can set it at any value or disregard it altogether?

To understand how mining and the block chain works think of the lottery. There is simply no way to know who will win the next draw. However, the winner of a particular draw/block gets certain privileges including a reward of funds/coins and the ability to dictate which transactions are included in the block they win.

If they are the winner, then they can include transactions they want, whether the fee is large, small, or not there at all.

By including a fee (or bid if you like) you increase the chance the next block found will acknowledge your transaction, since presumably most people mining blocks are motivated by profits. The higher the bid or fee, the higher the probability your transaction gets included.

Right now, because Bitcoin is still fairly small and it doesn't really cost miners anything extra, many or most miners will include transactions regardless of attached fees, as the goodwill helps Bitcoin overall. The only drawback or limitation to this is if someone is looking to bloat the block chain with valueless spam by sending very small coin amounts to themselves or other addresses over and over since it costs them practically nothing to do this. To guard against this very small coin amounts do require a fee for miners to acknowledge it, or it may not be included into the block chain for a very long time, perhaps many days or weeks. There was a thread explaining the ratio of transaction amount to fee size for likelihood of being included in a block around here explained by DeathAndTaxes who is good with details like that if you're interested.

I'm simply trying to distinguish  between which Bitcoin issues are real issues worth spending energy and time on and which are not. Of course that's subject to my opinion, but I try to provide a logical basis for my positions. All the time spent on things not detrimental to Bitcoin is not spent on things which can truly help it (technical issues, links to the mainstream economy, etc.).


I certainly will.


If so I wouldn't care, because my interest in things worth fighting for regarding Bitcoin developing only pertains to things I view as possibly detrimental to Bitcoin. If you or anyone can spell out why this issue might be I may join you. Otherwise, see you later. The floor is yours.

I just don't see why this is any real issue.

It seems like there is a beauty pageant going on and people are like "hey use me! or him! or her!" Who thf cares? Anybody that understands anything about Bitcoin should understand nobody can stop it, not governments, not press, nobody. Now that there is a little more money coming in and the start of mainstream attention people are starting to tug at their end of the blanket. Lighten up people! Nobody is stopping anybody from saying what they want to whomever they want. And nobody is saying how the current decision making regarding this particular PR issue is detrimental to Bitcoin. At least when I and other forum members protested the sudden creation of TBF we clearly spelled out how unchecked consolidated power could derail the entire thing.

This is pretty stupid, and no I don't think he's being entirely sarcastic, namely because of his FinCEN/exchange comments.

Pegging Bitcoin ala China to the dollar would never work because nobody controls the Bitcoin inflation rate. The market would soon figure out the true price of a bitcoin to a dollar.

Things are not always that simple, not as you grow on a world stage anyway. For example, do you know there are husbands and wives that, while I'm sure think each other great fathers and mothers, are opposed politically, or sometimes religiously? I'm not giving my own opinion on Matonis or anyone else involved, but simply trying to show how some people can relate to others well on some things but not others. People are complexly made up.

Well, I suppose if they thought Satoshi would have a problem with being named as a "founder" in their by-laws they might have a problem if not having consent, but I doubt it would ever be an issue.

Yes. And you can have Donald Duck as your "spiritual leader" if you like.

You don't understand what I'm saying.

The foundation's by-laws create various classes. One class is founding members, in which they included Satoshi. They could have also included a Spiritual Leaders class in which they name Donald Duck.

That doesn't mean Donald Duck has to sign anything.

I understand what you're saying. I don't entirely disagree. It's just that none of what's happening now and what is to happen in the future surprises me. I've been around Bitcoin since before it reached dollar parity and have watched various dramas unfold (and even participated in the foundation one). Luckily with a small market cap the maximum damage that could ever be done was relatively minute.

As Bitcoin's market cap grows the above cycle plays out on larger stages and with more at stake. Indeed, I have no worry for Bitcoin from a technical stand point so much as from a political one.

I expect the process to be far from smooth at all times, and often quite messy, but my hope is because all involved ultimately want Bitcoin to succeed there should be nothing that's ever detrimental. Instead, I see things as the free market electing representatives the way Americans elect congressional representatives. At times any individual constituent may disagree with a law or position taken by their government or congressman, but rather than things being governed by any individual's opinion or simple majority rule representatives decide. If the representatives do too badly they will cease to have that power in the end since the base will correct it.

I'm not trying to hide anything in plain sight. I'm no corporate lawyer, but AFAIK by-laws are simply rules that govern the corporate entity. You can say Donald Duck is your spiritual leader in your by-laws if you want to. It only applies to the entity.

It's clear all that's listed is his assumed identification. The free market can take that whichever way they want. You don't seem to give the free market much credit.

Yes and no.

What is happening is as Bitcoin grows so will the voices and interests vying for influence over it. The Bitcoin Foundation will naturally have growing power and influence.

This was something well seen beforehand by people, including myself, that reacted quite alarmed to the announcement of the foundation. The reason I am able to be at peace with the inevitable growing influence of the people basically at the core of Bitcoin's developmental progress, both in a technical and political way, is because viable alternatives for the market to express dissatisfaction now exist, namely Litecoin.

Translation: if Gavin's decisions screw things up too much people can jump ship and support alternatives.

For the record I think Gavin and the people closest to Bitcoin's development are doing a terrific job.

Once Bitcoin reached a certain point of adoption Satoshi said he was "moving on to other things". For whatever reason(s) he is no longer dealing in any significant way with Bitcoin, at least not openly. If he should ever decide to return in a public way why should he not have status with an organization likely to be well associated with the project he started?

Yes, I agree with your sentiment. I'm not trying to deny the group you're referring to has influence. What I'm trying to say is there is a reason that group has that influence. It didn't happen by accident.

If the free chain of events that led to this outcome has culminated in error that error will be corrected, for example, by people who feel discord like yourself, investigative journalists, bloggers, and whatever other elements there are making up the free market.

Bitcoin.org is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol.

Your logic would seem to suggest anyone owning http.org unfairly controls the Internet.


Like I said above, controlling the domain of letters associated with a protocol doesn't provide exclusive control over something nobody controls. Bitcoin works on a free market. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the free market has placed control over an influential aspect of the protocol with those quite qualified to have it? That's what I think happened, and if the market made a mistake in that it would be corrected by forces in discord over the mistake.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to protest. I've protested things here myself. If your protest has legs it will take off. I'm simply trying to clarify what's happening.