I'm quoting it right here folks.. DannyHamilton clearly said bitcoin can go to $10 billion each.
- image snip -
Prepare to mod out your moon rovers guys, we're gonna be doing some cool jumps off craters soon. (*Fingers crossed*)
There's a big difference between "can" and "will". (Note, I also said it "can" go to $0 each) By the way, if it does go to $10 billion each, there's a good chance that it happened because of run-away inflation in the U.S. dollar, so you'll be paying $67 million for a Big Mac. You might want to hold off on that moon rover. I guess then I will have to place the moon rover on layaway, but I shall still dream of the crater jumps. |
|
|
|
How low can it go and how high can it go?
It can go as low as $0 per bitcoin, and it can go as high as $10,000,000,000 per bitcoin. (maybe higher, but personally I doubt it) I'm quoting it right here folks.. DannyHamilton clearly said bitcoin can go to $10 billion each.  Prepare to mod out your moon rovers guys, we're gonna be doing some cool jumps off craters soon. (*Fingers crossed*) |
|
|
|
Think about it, why would "Satoshi" reference Hal Finney and Wei Dai but not the main key player out of the three people Hal Nick and Wei?
Why would he not reference arguably the most important out of those three people?
...
Once again, can you please post the quote that you are referencing? Read the references on the bitcoin white paper. I just did, I don't see Hal Finney mentioned in the references. There are many other people referenced other than Dai, why couldn't any of them be Satoshi? What in the Bitcoin White Paper did Satoshi Nakamoto take from Nick Szabo, that he didn't cite him for? Which is your reasoning to think that Nick Szabo wrote the White paper. |
|
|
|
Think about it, why would "Satoshi" reference Hal Finney and Wei Dai but not the main key player out of the three people Hal Nick and Wei?
Why would he not reference arguably the most important out of those three people?
...
Once again, can you please post the quote that you are referencing? |
|
|
|
...
Think about it, why would "Satoshi" reference Hal Finney and Wei Dai but not the main key player out of the three people Hal Nick and Wei?
Why would he not reference arguably the most important out of those three people?
...
What are you referencing that from? Can you provide the Satoshi quote you are referencing? |
|
|
|
Frankly, after this conversation online, I'm pretty confident that if I did fly and land in China,
I would be closely watched and monitored by their non-uniformed secret police or intelligence agency.
Seriously? You are paranoid - I live here and have done so for over 9 years - surely the secret police should have found me by now should have they not? Surely they have. I'm confident there is a large dossier on you, especially if you are having these conversations within their territory. I'm not saying they are going to grab you and prosecute your or anything, just that they are data-mining you. There is no value in surveillance of non-foreigners who still work in the fields, but not watching you would be an intelligence screw up. In any case - the point of this topic is more about whether or not a government (I brought up the Chinese one because of the PBOC announcement but feel free to insert any other one if you prefer) might issue a "digital gold asset" and threaten the very point of Bitcoin (if it is still undecided about whether it is supposed to be digital gold or an inferior replacement for PayPal).
Yes, lets agree to disagree and I will go on my way. |
|
|
|
...
...how about you come over here to China and sit down and have a few beers to discuss? (unless you are too afraid to come here because of the oppression) Frankly, after this conversation online, I'm pretty confident that if I did fly and land in China, I would be closely watched and monitored by their non-uniformed secret police or intelligence agency. |
|
|
|
Also - where is all this oppression happening?
(forgetting Xinjiang and Tibet as the vast majority of Chinese do not live in those two provinces)
It wasn't happening in Beijing when I lived there for five years and I have not experienced it in other cities that I've lived in China.
Seriously - in summer I can walk down the street with a beer in my hand and no policeman would even look at me oddly (in Australia if you did that you'd be likely to be charged).
I have actually met people that were in Tiananmen Square in 1989 (I doubt many other forum members here have) and I don't back away from saying that what happened then was very wrong but it isn't what is going on in most of the country today.
If you don't think China is doing anything different than anyone else and anyone who disagrees is influenced by Western propaganda, then why do the rich in China want to leave China and also attempt to give birth to their children in Western Countries? Why do they want western citizenship for their children? My parents didn't try to get me Chinese Citizenship. Who wants that? China is Oppression and Control, West is Freedom and Choice. Even the Chinese elite know that and want more for their children. We can agree to disagree, but to think that China would be the country to institute a truly free digital gold is mind boggling to me. |
|
|
|
If by digital currency you just mean "internet banking" then I think every country has that (so a rather ridiculous point).
At this stage it isn't really clear exactly what the PBOC are going to be doing so I think we'll have to wait and see - but in this topic I am bringing up the possibility that they do make it like "digital gold" (rather than "digital fiat").
Also - as I stated the Chinese government encourages their citizens to buy gold and silver (you can do so at any major bank). Does that sound like the kind of thing that a government would do if it wants to have total control over its citizens money?
I don't know if you are addressing my comment, since you are not quoting, but from your some of your terminology above, I think you are. The fact that the Chinese government allows people to buy physical gold and silver currently is not a sign of non-oppression. The Chinese are not dumb and understand that debt based economies are not long lasting. They need to consume gold. If anything, they know how to play the long game, especially with the military. Just look at the islands they are building off of Japan. Diversification is fine for their citizens and a smart thing to do as an "advancing" world power. But the average citizen can only own and carry only so much physical gold/silver. But one day, when they are ready, they will Execute Order 66 and all gold will be handed over for conversion to a fiat or digital fiat. Any "digital gold' that is created and maintained by the Chinese government will not be like the Bitcoin/bitcoin we know. It will be used in ways to control their people. Just like how the Tienanmen Square incident is erased from their history books, so will the protesters and dissenters of the Chinese government, be blocked from commerce and ultimately be erased as well. |
|
|
|
|
The Chinese government digital currency, I would very much bet, will be everything bitcoin is not.
It will be seize-able, blacklist-able, cap change-able, backdoor-able, control-able, and etc.
The Chinese government will directly use it to oppress its citizens.
In a future world of accepted digital currencies, including nationally approved digital currencies,
Bitcoin/bitcoin will be the only true digital gold, surrounded by nationally approved and manipulable digital fiat.
If any government would follow what Bitcoin/bitcoin did exactly and never changed its coin cap or etc,
then that government would be admitting that they have no actual control over their finances and etc.
No government wants that. Especially the Chinese government who is manipulating their own currency right now.
They want to do what they want, when they want, especially in "financial emergencies".
Bitcoin/bitcoin is something other countries don't want to actually mimic.
|
|
|
|
Guys, correct me if I'm wrong but,
Considering the whole concept of how Bitcoins come into existence, Satoshi Nakamoto cannot be just one person, right? It must be a group...
if the whole thing lies in transactions, how could have Satoshi mined the genesis block all by himself?
Satoshi Nakamoto was singular from October 2008 to August 2009. After that, then came Sirius-M, who worked with Satoshi. Then in July 2010, Gavin and others began to appear. Then in February 2011, many people began to appear and expanded the work. Now today, we have over 340 "contributors". This is my understanding. |
|
|
|
OK, thanks AgentofCoin, that is great info. So I will go to the paper wallet address, then disconnect from the internet, then have it generate a new paper wallet address, print it out, close the window, then go back online and transfer from CoinBase to the wallet address. Also, great idea about sending a very small amount to make sure I don't totally newb myself to death!  Patrick What you would actually do is: 1. go to bitaddress.org 2. in your browser, go to File, and find "save page as" or something to that effect. 3. it should be called something like bitaddress.org.html, save that to your desktop. 4. close your browsers, disconnect from internet (for extra security) 5. open the file called bitaddress.org.html on your desktop with your browser. 6. in this "offline-html version" now generate your paper wallet. 7. print that paper wallet, and save it very carefully, you lose that, you lose your coins. 8. close your browser again, connect back to the internet 9. go to Coinbase, place that newly generated bitcoin address into their send form 10. and it should be in your paper wallet shortly thereafter (I don't know exactly how fast Coinbase works with withdrawals). |
|
|
|
...
Yes, everything you said is basically correct (I have never used Coinbase or know its "sending" form). The only thing I would point out is that: 1. You should generate your paper wallet offline by saving the webpage as a html and opening it in a browser when you are not connected to the internet. In theory, it is a more safer way. 2. After you have generated that paper wallet, print it out and save that copy, before sending your tx. 3. Maybe send a small sum out of Coinbase first (like 0.001 btc) to test it, before you send your full amount. 4. And always, confirm that the btc address and amount you enter is the one you want, before hitting send. |
|
|
|
...
I think i get it now. Thank you for your help to understand this. I guess my original question was a no brainer, lol. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
I guess my question here is then, when the signature data is separated out, (and is now called the segregated witness data),
it is still checked to determine if it is valid and spendable and follow the same procedures and rules as prior to
SegWit being activated?
Yes. The signature data is separated from the transaction data and verified as before, but now hashed into OP_RETURN?
No. The signature data is put into a second data structure called a Witness. That witness has a reference to the transaction that it belongs to and is send alongside of the transaction. When you say "you have to download the witness data" what do you mean? Is that separate from the blockchain data?
Yes. It is sent alongside the block as another data structure called a Witness Block. I think the point of the OP_RETURN in the coinbase is to essentially assign the witness block to that block. It makes downloading it easier as instead of requesting the witness of each transaction individually, the node can request the entire witness block. I think I understand better now. Thank you. Last few questions: 1. If the Witness blocks are separate from the blockchain data, I assume miners will need to download the full SegWit Data blocks to verify the signatures, in addition to the blockchain blocks? 2. If the Witness blocks are now an additional thing to download, verify, and maintain, will this cause additional effort and time for the chinese miners, before transmitting a block with txs included? What I mean is, will this new step add time to the race to find a block and add txs to it? I understand that SegWit provides for more space within a block to add more txs, but since it is now SegWit is a separate chain, will that add to the race to make blocks with txs? 3. If the Witness blocks are separate from the blockchain data, will there need to be SegWit block explorers in the near future? Or would everyone just watch the bitcoin block explorers and wait and watch the OP_RETURN hash? |
|
|
|
...
If you are familiar with alt-coins that are using the bitcoin blockchain, it is a similar principle. You have data
(here it's the witness data) that is transmitted aside from the blockchain. However, in order to prove that
data authentic, its hash is included in the blockchain.
I guess my question here is then, when the signature data is separated out, (and is now called the segregated witness data), it is still checked to determine if it is valid and spendable and follow the same procedures and rules as prior to SegWit being activated? The signature data is separated from the transaction data and verified as before, but now hashed into OP_RETURN? This one, I'm unclear myself. It seems to me that it's a nice to have - but not a requirement. Every transaction is either signed directly and its signature included
in the blockchain (normal case) or in the witness data. If you are interested in verifying signatures, you have to download the witness data. Once you have it,
...
When you say "you have to download the witness data" what do you mean? Is that separate from the blockchain data? Either I am overthinking this too much or am oblivious since I am a laymen with this. It would be great if someone could make a youtube video with simple animations as to how SegWit would work. If it becomes a major function/feature of Bitcoin/bitcoin into the future, there should be something that average users can grasp easily. Thank you for helping me to understand. Edit: I guess my real problem was when I learned that the SegWit would have its own merkel tree. |
|
|
|
Technically speaking, the witness data is not in the blockchain.
If the witness data is not in the blockchain, where is it? I thought you said it is in the OP_RETURN. It is sent separately alongside of the blocks.
Do you mean alongside the txs, prior to being in a block? However, the blocks must have some way to reference the witness block, and they do that by including the hash of the witnesses in the coinbase transaction.
Why do blocks need to reference the witness block? when a block is formed, isn't all txs within that block proved to be signed properly? What do you mean coinbase transaction? I thought that is the block reward (currently 25btc). I guess I'm really not understanding it. |
|
|
|
...
...wouldn't it be wise for MEGA-chinese miner or mega-bitcion-holders to exchange bitcoin with themselves
just to control/manipulate/stabalize THE VALUE of bitcoin?
Value of bitcoin is not based on "transferring" it around or back and forth. The value is based on what people are willing to pay on the exchanges or through in-person trades. That value is based on the need or desire to own bitcoin at that moment. If the bitcoin price is "stable" it is because people are buying the available coins at a steady constant rate. If they buy less, the price would go down, since now too many coins are in supply. If they buy more, the price would go up, since now too many coins are in demand. That might sound dumb, but if i was mining 25% of all bitcoin(like some chinese miner),
wouldn't be wise to use my bitcoin to create false transactions just to keep the price up or stable or what ever benefits me most?
As I stated above, the price is based on what is actually being bought and sold in the exchanges, not what transactions are moving through the bitcoin network. Transaction numbers should not effect bitcoin price. If a miner was placing their coins on the exchanges, and were buying and selling them over and over, it would be likely over time that they would be doing this at a loss to themselves. So in order for them to stabilize the "value", over time they would be losing money, even without fees. |
|
|
|
when are these blocksize turds going to make a decision ive never erd such school boy nonsense in my live.
can you just hurry up and fix this blocksize shit before i dump all my bitcoin into silver
 |
|
|
|
I should have been more specific. I do not have a coding background, so that is why I was looking for the info "plainly". If what you say is correct, then the witness data is still being maintained within the Bitcoin blockchain. I am reading the BIPs over now, even though 85% flys over my head. Thank you for your response. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
