 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
I'll be there  |
|
|
|
Posting to be in the history books! Hi Mom!
Exactly! But I'm posting for my future children and grandchildren Hi there! Cheers from 2013! |
|
|
|
Am I dreaming this? If so I hope not to wake up Is this just in Germany or all Europe? Even if its only Germany it sets the example for the rest of Europe ... In your face US  It's only Germany. In Europe every country has its own tax system. For instance in the Netherlands we don't have a capital gains tax, only a capital tax (1.2% annually, no matter if you had gains or losses), so the huge value gains of your bitcoins go untaxed |
|
|
|
I'm not impressed by my post/day average I must say, I guess I'm a classical lurker  I'm better at lurking Back in 2011, when FPGAs started to be developed on, I proposed to my professor to design a Bitcoin ASIC as my master thesis. It wouldn't have taken a lot of time. Less than butterfly labs, at least! But he refused, saying that digital-only circuits are a solved problem and have no academic value. Which is true actually, if you are a IC-design academic He agreed it would be interesting for economists, however. |
|
|
|
If you know me, you can. You will have to send me 100% of the amount in BTC as a guarantee. I can buy in any exchange as I have money in all of them. For a fee, of course. The ones doing this will make a killing tomorrow as they did today, irrespective of what happens to the price.
I don't believe it will go sub-$20. I am not the only arbitrageur out there. Everybody wants bitcoins. If you don't believe me, sell yours to me.
So, why aren't you buying with all your fiat in all exchanges right now? Are you thinking it will be even lower or are you strictly arbitraging? |
|
|
|
We are part of history gentlemen. I'm sure this thread will one day be sold at the better local bookshop.
Are you saying you are sure we are the new wealthy elite? |
|
|
|
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2013/04/investingIt mainly talks about how the gold market turned bearish, but there are two paragraphs about Bitcoin. It mentions the recent article on FT Alphaville and the blog post of Felix Salmon, and compares Bitcoin to the South Sea bubble: Indeed, gold's fall contrasts with a sudden boom in the price of another alternative currency, Bitcoin (although the price has been hit today by attacks on the website). As Felix Salmon notes in an excellent post on the virtual money, enthusiasts for Bitcoin and gold come from separate social niches so this trend divergence is explicable, even though one might think their fundamental similarities (a restricted supply) might prompt them to be correlated in normal circumstances. Another explanation for the gap is that the Bitcoin bubble, like any other, is a case of investors piling into an illiquid asset that has suddenly made the news (the story was on the front of the FT today).
In a sense, Bitcoin, a currency with no backing at all except faith (see FT Alphaville), is reminiscent of the "undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is" that (perhaps apocryphally) marked the peak of the South Sea Bubble. Of course, many might remark that developed world currencies have no metallic backing and so exist on faith as well; however they do have legal tender status and have the (admittedly impaired) implied backing of the tax-raising powers of their governments. Western governments may yet undermine their currencies but they haven't so far; dollars and euros are pretty universally accepted.
|
|
|
|
Before we go with community translations, I'm currently discussing about how it can be done right. There are some considerations. Like potential inaccuracies in translations or translations that don't get updated often enough. So it's most likely that the english texts are going to be proof-read many times in the future before being published (and translated). Some translation guidelines are also needed.
Personally, I want the website to be translated in as many languages as possible (as long as each transaction is accurate and good quality). So you can count on me to come back about this if nobody opposes to this idea.
Thanks for offering yourself!
Congratulations on the upgrade of your work to bitcoin.org! About the guidelines and the translation process there are the following issues I see: 1) The translations must be kept up-to-date 2) The quality must be high As I understood this project is set up this way (on github where pull requests are invited) to be able to translate everything, including things like urls and rewrite rules thereof. But there are downsides to not using a tool like transifex: Especially issue 1) becomes a problem I think. Is there an easy solution to let translators know which sections in the source (English) have been updated since their last translation efforts? Maybe a very detailed summary should be written every time something changes in English? I've noticed in bitcoin-qt that sometimes a wording in the source changes only slightly but results in a big difference in meaning. If you don't know there has been such an update it is very easy to miss it when you compare a source and its translation side by side. Regarding the quality issue (2): Should we maybe require a small team per language, so that we only let a language go live if there are at least say three people vouching to look after the translation? Surely there is some experienced web developer here who has managed a high-profile multi lingual website? I'd be very happy to contribute the Dutch translation, I've done also the bulk of bitcoin-qt so I can make them consistent. |
|
|
|
You might also want to consider hiding your computer's IP address so that it cannot be logged using a tool like Tor. To me this reads as if Tor is the tool that is used to log ip addresses. I'd change this to: You might also want to consider hiding your computer's IP address so that it cannot be logged by others. You can use a tool like Tor to accomplish this. |
|
|
|
|
Well, I must say I'm not thrilled by this piece.
I'm Dutch and I must say it reads like it is written by some high schooler, although apparently it is not. I couldn't say why it mentions the straw men for instance. Also there are quite a few inaccuracies.
Never heard of the site of course.
|
|
|
|
It's largely positive, and there are no big factual errors. This is the kind of mainstream news I like It mentions that professional investment firms are looking closely at Bitcoin. And that the main corncern is 'security', although it doesn't discriminate between the protocol and wallets. |
|
|
|
|
Nice chart!
Maybe it's also an idea to mention the security model the clients use?
|
|
|
|
de eerste uitspraken van de belastindienst over bitcoin zijn uitgebracht
Ik ben benieuwd! Wat heeft de belastingdienst gezegd? Staat het al ergens op dit forum? |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to think of a bitcoin address as just another item in the 'personal information' list, like a regular address, phone number or email address. I think it should be an entry in a users profile. Then, when I feel the need to send somebody some money, I can just look it up and send some. Of course, people may also choose to not put it in public display, just as with phone numbers or email addresses. It depends on the situation, for instance one might not list it on a public forum like this. When it's listed in a profile, I definitely don't see it as solliciting for change.
I'd really like to have a bitcoin address for all my friends in my address book, then when I borrow something or have to make a quick transaction, I can just browse my smartphone for the right person and send some coins!
|
|
|
|
Nice article! However, two links are broken: - bitstamp.com should be bitstamp.net
- btcde.com should be bitcoin.de
|
|
|
|
All these massive requirements are built on top of the urban legend that a currency must grow (and shrink) to keep pace with an ill-defined concept of economic growth. What if a revolutionary new product or industry is created that transforms the economic landscape, thus changing the very definition of economic growth?
Can you elaborate on that? I don't get what you mean. |
|
|
|
Computerising the FED would just be a fancy gimmick if banks could still exert the same power by controlling lending rates.
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that. To him the issuing of currency would be defined by an algorithm depending on the spendings (assuming a computer can know these data). The FED would have no power on it once it is launched: he insists on the idea of throwing the key a way, so it is not ambiguous at all. I doubt there is anyway for a computer to measure economics activities though, since money transfers could easily be fake (with no real economic exchange behind) by anyone willing to increase the money supply. But this is an other matter. To me a computer should be economicly blind: its only job should be to provide money at a predefined rate, whatever the economic situation is. Selgin doesn't agree with that, but he likes the idea of a monetary system being "human-proof". I think you are right. I also think that Dr. Selgin understands bitcoin very well, not so much from this video as he doesn't go into its details, but from antother one I saw before. He understands how decentralized governing by an algorithm works: In the other video, he said that people accept only money (coins) that adhere to their own standard. So that if you change the algorithm (eg. altering block rewards), you created another currency that is only viable if others change their algorithm in the same way. Now what I think he would like, judging from this video, is a currercy that is controlled in the same way as bitcoin (decentralized) but with a different algorithm. First he discredits a money supply where the inflation is predetermined. He prefers an algorithm that tracks GDP. Unfortunately he doesn't give any insights as how this should work technically. Here are my ideas: Personally I think there are two main difficulties in implementing this. The first is the control algorithm. We cannot control the desired state directly (GDP), let alone independently. There are many other states that we may or may not want to control. (Economics is too complex. I think the whole point is that if we focus on only one state - GDP - and control it properly everything else will be fine). One of the other states is the money supply. In Bitcoin we have an input that directly controls that state: Block rewards. But it can only increase it. So we need a model for the economy that tells us how the states and inputs relate, and then find a control law that governs the desired state by controlling the inputs. One of the questions is if this system is controllable at all, we may need more inputs. One thing to make the system more controllable is if we also can invent a way that destroys bitcoins when a block is created. And does anyone else have an idea about which other inputs might be used? The second problem I foresee is that the state measurement must be automatic. Currently the GDP is yearly published by government agencies. But the algorithm must be able to determine the GDP without the interference of humans. Selgin explicitly states that a system like this brings only stability if there is absolutely no human in the loop that can act unexpectedly. Also, this measurement must be accurately performed often: Delays in control systems make them harder to stabilize. A yearly publication is probably too slow. Maybe monthly publications/measurements are fine, maybe this is possible, in fact I don't know how often this is currently done. And, as somebody else mentioned, we must be very careful to measure the actual state, not a proxy (like the sum of all transactions in stead of only those that represent economic activity). Any other ideas? |
|
|
|
Speaking about bugs... When trying to register: Fatal error: [edited] I think it involves a typo  Also, I PM'd you about an invite, not sure if you gave me one. |
|
|
|
|
I like your work!
Someone mentioned that he'd rather not associate Bitcoin with regular (fiat) currencies through the use of double slashes. I on the other don't think this is a problem: When you see a B with two slashes and haven't seen it before, it already looks like a currency symbol. Which it is. Just through it's appearance.
|
|
|
|
Interesting numbers. I think it can mean this attacker can do a few things: They can generate way more than 50 BTC per block. But then the 'normal' clients will ignore the block chain generated by the attacker as the blocks don't follow the rules. This may be an annoying attack, but the 'normal' blockchain would still be generated in the background as normal. The wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses lists some things that he can do while following the rules: (section "Attacker has a lot of computing power") - Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
- Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
- Prevent some or all other generators from getting any generations
Maybe someone else can elaborate on how much impact these things have, in the short and long term. |
|
|
|
|
