Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2015, 03:56:45 PM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 ... 221 »
1081  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Cryptsy Support Ticket Delays? on: July 24, 2014, 06:20:48 PM
Sent you a PM

Replied Smiley
1082  Economy / Economics / Re: Global Financial Crisis scenarios on: July 24, 2014, 05:32:31 PM
Something else to consider about those "irretrievable" coins: they may not be permanently irretrievable.  As technology progresses, it may eventually become feasible to brute force the keys in a reasonable amount of time (although I'm not exactly sure how this would work, so I could be wrong).
It's not and never will be. It's not a matter of technology. There is simply not enough energy in this solar system to brute force private keys, even in theory.

I wonder how many times humanity has claimed the impossible only to be surprised by a very rude awakening.

Let's modify that to, "Based upon our current understanding, we believe this will never happen."

Brute forcing *does* seem overwhelmingly infeasible (but NOT impossible as there is a known chance of a collision, and though this likelihood is unfathomably small, it's still there).  But, there may be alternative methods to brute forcing we haven't considered.  In *theory* an advanced quantum computer would contain all possible private key solutions -- an analogy of how such an advanced computer can be imagined is to think of a library that contains all books that ever have *and* that ever will be written, and that there simply needs to be a method to find the book you're looking for.  Accordingly, it's not so much about solving for the correct answer, but rather removing everything that's unnecessary to leave only the correct answer.  Take this with a grain a salt; I'm by no means an expert on the subject.
1083  Economy / Service Discussion / Cryptsy Support Ticket Delays? on: July 24, 2014, 06:45:13 AM
On February 10th, I submitted a support ticket for a missing DOGE deposit into my Crypty account.  The transaction cleared fairly soon after I made the ticket, but I just received email notification from them *today* (about 5 months later) letting me know that my ticket has been resolved. 

I'm just wondering if this is the norm for Crypty support tickets.  I mean, come on...five months?   Anyone else have issues with this? 
1084  Economy / Economics / Re: Global Financial Crisis scenarios on: July 24, 2014, 06:13:04 AM
Fiat is a store of value, but not a good store, as the value evaporates with time. Other money, with a near stable value, is better. Bitcoin is more risky as it can go down further, but since it can also appreciate, it can be described as stable with volatility, or stable with a risk. But I expect the value to go up as far more likely than to go down, so as a store of value it is far better than stable money.

What you're describing is a good investment, not a good currency.  Bitcoin is anything but stable.  Stable plus a little volatility is what the price of a bitcoin on Bitstamp has been for the last few days: it's oscillated only a few dollars around $621 or so.  For normal currencies, a 1% change is big deal.  Look at that article about Venezuela.  60% inflation is insane.  Compare that to the 7000% that bitcoin has gone up in the last 2 years.  You can't tell me that bitcoin is stable.

I didn't.
Um, yes you did.  See the bold text from your previous comment.

Once more. Dollar is perceived as stable, but slowly depreciates at 1.5% to5% per year. That is maybe stable day to day, but it is not at all stable over a decennium.

Bitcoin is designed to be stable over decennia, but is currently not stable day to day. There is a risk of 10 % down at any day, but after 10 years it is either stable or going up. So it is stable over some longer period, but it is volatile day to day. So, it you can stomach the day to day risk, it is stable over 10 years or even 3 years. Better than that for savers, it is expected to go up, even if there is a day to day risk.

I don't care to feed you with a teaspoon on this any more. Take it or leave it.

This doesn't seem like a convincing argument.  Here's why:

1) If after 10 years the value of bitcoins is stable or going up, then  it's *not* stable and going up.

2) There's no reason why after 10 years the value of BTC can't go down.

3) There's no reason that guarantees the value of bitcoins will be stable in 10 years.  It *could* be, but there's no mechanism that ensures this.  

4) If the value of bitcoin goes up (i.e. like a good investment might), you run into the problem of currency hoarding, and this conflicts with the importance of liquidity.  

5) Expecting BTC to go up doesn't mean it will happen.  Ask all the people that bought BTC just before or shortly after the ATH what their expectations were upon buying in.

6) No matter how you spin it, fiat is historically a better store of value as it is less volatile and more predictable.  Imagine having $1000 in USD and $1000 in BTC and asking yourself to predict how much purchasing power you will have in one year.  I can estimate with great confidence how well my $1000 in USD will hold up over that year, but I can't estimate the same for BTC.  Just look at all the predictions on BTC price made on this forum.  A year ago, we had some expecting BTC to be $10,000 by now while others expected it to be closer to $10.  

7) Stemming from this last thought, it's simply a non-sequitur to conclude bitcoin is a better store of value because of a personal expectation you have that leads you to believe it's more probable that BTC value will increase rather than decrease.

Cool There are a handful of scenarios which could wreak utter havoc on BTC as a store of value.  For example, consider that while the total supply of BTC is known, the market supply is not, and this could be very, very problematic.  Many people have stated something to the effect of, "If BTCs/private keys are lost or irretrievable, this decreases the market supply and it just makes the rest of us richer!"  Okay, that's great, but let's say that some large number of BTCs that are assumed to be lost or irretrievable actually aren't.  It's already been estimated that the total number of lost or irretrievable BTCs already tallies into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.  The problem is there's really no way to make a good estimate.

To illustrate with an extreme example, let's say that all but 1 BTC are considered lost or irretrievable.  Since BTC can be divided infinitesimally, this shouldn't be an issue since the global economy could still function with only 1 BTC in existence, right?  Can't you just shift a few decimal places?  Theoretically this could work, but then imagine what would happen if those BTCs assumed to be lost/irretrievable are discovered to be found and active?  What if the ~1 million BTC that Satoshi mined started moving when all that was assumed to remain was 1 measly BTC?  What do you think about BTC as a store of value then?  Don't you think that it's realistic to expect that, if BTC value continues to rise for many years as you expect it to, there *will* be many BTC hoarders who will also wait years before making their own personal supply known to the markets (i.e. by moving them)?  

TL;DR:  You might want to reconsider your position...
1085  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Just how secure is Armory? on: July 24, 2014, 03:57:08 AM
I *love* Armory.

1)  I can make offline transactions such that my private keys are never exposed to an Internet connection.
2)  The "watch-only" wallets are great for managing cold storage addresses.
3)  Deterministic wallets FTW
4)  Importing and sweeping of private keys and funds is easy and very convenient (just make sure you know what you're doing)
5)  I love the clean GUI

By the way, as far as I know, "offline" wallets refer to wallets with a private key that are *not* exposed to an Internet connection.  To this extent, any wallet on any computer without an Internet connection is an offline wallet.

A "watch-only" wallet is a wallet that is exposed to an Internet connection, but lacks the private key of the wallet it is watching.  For example, imagine that you saved a wallet file to a USB stick before deleting the wallet from your computer.  Now, you take that USB stick and store it, so now you have a cold-storage wallet that is "offline."  Armory allows you to create a "watch-only" copy of this wallet, but this copy lacks the private key.

With this "watch-only" copy, you can go back onto your computer, connect to the Internet, open Armory, and let it synchronize.  After synchronization, you will be able to monitor your balance, receive transactions, and generate new receiving addresses for your cold-storage wallet in real-time.  However, what you *won't* be able to do is make a sending transaction from your watch-only wallet (i.e. because it lacks the private key).

This is where offline transactions come in.  Assuming you have two computers set up (i.e. one with your offline, cold-storage wallet, and the other with your online,  watch-only wallet), you can do the following:

1) Run Armory online on the computer with the watch-only wallet, initiate an offline transaction, then save this transaction to a USB stick.  Because the watch-only wallet doesn't have the private key to sign the transaction, you need to retrieve that information.

2) Take the USB stick, go to your other computer with the cold-storage wallet, and open Armory offline.  You can then sign your offline transaction with the private key information contained in that wallet.  Since Armory is in offline mode and your computer has no Internet connection, the private key is secure.  Now you can save the signed transaction to your USB stick.

3)  Now that you have the signed transaction saved to the USB stick, go back to the online computer with the "watch-only" wallet copy.  You can now load and broadcast this transaction to the network..

...and that is why I love Armory.  It allows me to create multiple, secure copies of my wallet(s) and private key information, and it allows me to send and receive bitcoins without ever having to worry about being the victim of a hack.  It's pretty impossible to hack private key information if it's permanently stored offline Smiley
1086  Bitcoin / Group buys / Re: [PSA] Self Moderated Group Buys are 100% Scams on: July 24, 2014, 03:34:43 AM
Fair enough guys, it's just so subject to abuse.  Also I think we all need to start using PGP keys for all communications, it's getting really bad here with account selling/impersonations/theft.

You know, I think people should make use of telephone calls more often.  A simple, couple-minute phone conversation goes a *very* long way in establishing trust, and it's usually a lot easier to flush out and identify scammers.
1087  Economy / Goods / Re: [WTS] 1 X 2012 1-BTC Casascius Physical Bitcoin on: July 23, 2014, 06:23:54 PM
Do you still have this available?

Responded to your PM Smiley
1088  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: It seems impossible to me to successfuly explain the concept of mining to... on: July 21, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
When explaining mining to people, I liken it to gold mining. It was obviously modeled similarly.
A very obvious and key difference though...
While mining Bitcoin serves to bring new bitcoin into supply, like gold.
Bitcoin mining further functions to secure the network & process the transactions etc... (if you want to go into how that works from there w/ ledger etc... so be it) - gold mining in no way functions to secure gold.

After laying out the above, it usually starts to click to people.

There are obviously more differences but it covers things pretty well.

Right, but what happens when all gold (BTC) is mined? How is it planned that miners are incentived enough to the point they keep mining? Will the rewards be relevant? Also, what kind of processing power in terms of hashing are we going to need may Bitcoin be accepted at mainstream tier levels of adoption, with shitloads of transactions every second? How is it guaranteed that there will be enough processing power on there in such scenareo?

Some good questions but I don't even try getting into this when I'm explaining it to people.  The idea that eventually only the transaction fees are going to be "mined"  is an advanced concept I think.  Hey I used to have trouble explaining AOL IM to my parents but they do Facetime etc. now so they can get it.  Maybe you could set up their gpu or something to mine so they can understand it better.

I think the main problem with the gold analogy is that the value of gold is self-explanatory whereas the value of BTC is not.  I can do a bunch of hard work and dig a huge hole in my backyard but that doesn't mean that either the work or the hole itself is valuable.  If I get lucky and find gold in my backyard, it's obvious that I've found something valuable, but it's not so obvious that the BTC I generate by getting lucky and solving a block has value.
1089  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Looking for $20,000 investor in company. on: July 20, 2014, 06:16:51 AM
you guys are looking to invest in, ummm....... what exactly ?

The company that will take 5 hour energy out of business, or so I think Wink

Is this something like the idea I had to turn the end of a mechanical pencil into a caffeine spritzer?
1090  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Promises Aside, There’s Still No Fix for Bitcoin’s Fatal Flaw on: July 20, 2014, 06:12:40 AM
This is kind of like saying, "There's still no fix for humanity's fatal flaw -- choice."
1091  Economy / Services / Re: Need craigslist poster(s) on: July 20, 2014, 05:51:06 AM
Indeed, careful what you get into, if you can post 50 ads a day in the for sale section you might get into that. Am still looking for serious posters that actually want to do this for the stated amount, am willing to go up on price just as long as i find someone serious. Once again, I am looking for someone that can post on CRAIGSLIST:
50 ads a day
section is for sale
am paying 0.0014 per post, willing to go up to 0.019 if you can show me that you can post
i will provide ads, as many as you need so you don't come back crying it doesn't stick
For the ones that want to ask me why I don't do it myself: Please FO, am not here to answer ANY kind of question, I will provide what you need and will help you with your work and will always pay on a daily basis.
Don't need no advices, am only looking for persons  that have the time and are willing to work for that money.
Interested posters, please pm what you can do, what you are afraid of, what you would need to make this work but please, only do it if you are actually interested doing it. Am willing to pay 50$+ per day for your work, if you can work for 100$ that's what I will pay for, I really thought this would be easier, am now thinking it would be simpler if i would post this in the gigs section on CL itself ...

I will *totally* do this for 0.019 BTC per post...

...though I'm not sure that's what you meant, is it?
1092  Economy / Economics / Re: Does Money Even Need a Use Value? on: July 17, 2014, 08:45:07 PM
Bitcoin is very similar to the US Dollar, but instead of being backed by the US economy, bitcoin is backed by the bitcoin network aka the miners.

Legal tender laws simply state the currency people is forced to accept as repayment of debts.
The government is not interested in being paid with pieces of paper, they are interested in give them away in exchange of something useful to them (goods and services).

The USD (or better the Fed.Res. Note) is not backed by the US economy, it is backed by the full faith and credit of the USoA. Nowaday a lot more faith than credit I would suggest.
With one Fed Note I have no claim on any output of the US economy.

I'm not sure it's faith or credit anymore...just legacy.

Tradition (cit. Ben Bernanke)

Yes, that's what I meant by legacy (legacy: "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past <the legacy of the ancient philosophers>"

The difference between a USD and a BTC is the USD can be printed in unlimited quantities out of thin air. Bitcoin can not.
Without its legal tender status the USD would lose its value. Bitcoin have no legal tender status to give it value, so it can not be taken away.

The USD has value because a bunch of people came together and said that the country needs a national currency to facilitate payments and trade.  They created the dollar and declared that it has value.  How is bitcoin different?  Satoshi created a technology that could be used as a currency to facilitate payments and trade in a manner that's independent of any particular government.  A community developed around that idea, and they declared that it had value.  Over time, more and more people have agreed with that idea, and we are where we are today.

The difference is in the bunch of people propping up the Fed.Res. Note impose the use of it with violence and threat of (dollar is a measure of weight in gold or silver).
The people advocating for Bitcoin never used or threatened to use violence to anyone.
In fact, the use of violence reduce the value of the Fed Note, but it is not a problem because it is already zero.

So you believe that the dollar retains its value because of threat of violence?  You don't think that people mutually agree that it's useful to have a common currency, even if the Fed has power over it?

And how do you figure that a Fed Note has a value of zero?  I can go to a store and exchange it for goods or services, so apparently it's still worth something.

What back Bitcoin is the cost of censoring one or more transactions on the blockchain. It is a very high cost.

Yes, it is a high cost now.  But one thing I've wondered about this is why is the cost required to be high?  Why couldn't bitcoin function just fine at $100?  Or $10?

Because the value of the revenues of the miners is linked to the value of the bitcoin.
Higher the value, higher the PoW cost, higher the security of the network.

Bitcoin is very similar to the US Dollar, but instead of being backed by the US economy, bitcoin is backed by the bitcoin network aka the miners.
This is something that concerns me a little bit.  How do you ascribe a particular value to the network/miners?
It is the service that the network provides - keeping confirmed transactions secure and confirming transactions.

Yes, I understand that transaction confirmation is a valuable service, but how do you put a particular price on it?  The average amount of money spent on confirming a transaction today (including hardware, electricity, and profit) is obviously orders of magnitude higher than it was a couple years ago.  The only difference between then and now is higher security.  The bitcoin network will function just fine whether it's operating at 1 terahash/sec or 1 exahash/sec.  Now, I agree that security is important, but how much security do you need?  You'd have trouble outspending a multi-billion-dollar financial institution, and you'd never be able to outspend some of the biggest governments of the world.

I realize that the cost of transaction confirmation is linked to the price of bitcoin, but what if bitcoin fell to $100 and stayed there?  A bunch of miners would turn off their hardware, the market would rebalance, and bitcoin would continue just fine with a lower network hash rate.  If this is false, please tell me why.  If it's true, then how can you tell me that bitcoins should actually be worth ~$620 each right now?

(And btw, as I have some bitcoin, I'd like to believe that it is backed by something valuable, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the mining network has to have any particular value.)

In what way and/or to what degree do you think the cost of transaction confirmation is linked to the price of bitcoins?  I agree generally with this statement, but I think the relationship is complex and quite possibly moot, other than the fact that we know that the value of bitcoins depends upon network functionality.

It seems to me that we're talking about the value of a lot of things, and these things conceptually overlap each other.  First, we are considering the value of bitcoins.  Second, there's the value of the network.  Arguably, third and fourth could be the value of transaction processing or the value of the protocol/codebase.  Fifth, there's market cap, and this could be valued differently than the network.

One way to approach finding the value of something is to consider that ascribing a value to something invokes the question, "To whom is it valuable?"  And then there's the follow up question, "Why?"

It seems the simplest valuation of the Bitcoin network is that it's at least as valuable as the market cap with an unknown upper bound.  Part of my reasoning for thinking this is that market cap (i.e. whether a market cap actually exists, not its exact value)  is entirely dependent upon network functionality.  To me, there's something self-evident about the idea that if something is entirely dependent upon something else to exist, it can't be more valuable than the thing it depends on.

I'm not sure if it's possible to ascribe an exact value to the network because there seems to be a mathematical uncertainty regarding various methods that all seem equally plausible.  For example, I imagine that one could come up with a lot of good ways to determine the value of added network security.  Furthermore, I imagine one could define the boundaries of things like "transaction processing" and "network" in different-but-plausible ways which would affect how one determines the value of these things.

So, moving to bitcoins themselves, I would think that if the price of bitcoins dropped to $100, then the network should be worth less, too.  It also seems to me that there's no theoretical reason why the price couldn't stay there so long as enough fiat kept flowing into the market throughout the duration of Bitcoin's inflationary period.

Now, asking what price bitcoins *should* be at is a question that confuses me, and that's because I can approach that in different ways, too.  It's kind of like asking what an antique pocket watch *should* go for at an auction.  There's no real specific answer, but you could say something like, "Well, based upon the last 10 auctions, the average selling price was $500, and the most recent sale was $550."  With this information, you could arrive at different conclusions, but they'd still be vague (e.g. "the watch should sell for at least $500"; "the watch should sell for at least $550).

I guess I'll go with an Occam's-Razor-esque valuation of bitcoin and say that bitcoin should be worth about what it's trading at right now.  Unfortunately, this type of answer doesn't yield much utility.
1093  Economy / Services / Re: [PrimeDice] [Highest Paid Signature] Earn Bitcoins Simply By Posting on: July 17, 2014, 04:30:15 AM

I'm not on the updated enrolled users list despite having filled out the enrollment form and adding the correct signature.

@Stunna, you have a PM.
1094  Other / Off-topic / Re: What is your favorite music genre? on: July 17, 2014, 04:25:53 AM
Heavy metal, though I'm rather picky about it.

I love music that progresses, and while all sorts of genres have a beautiful, softer side to them, heavy metal is the only genre for me that can climax with the intensity and energy that it does.

I'm also an introvert, so heavy metal sort of balances the stimulus of the environment with the stimulus in my head.
1095  Other / Off-topic / Re: California, The Land of Fruits And Nuts Finally Has A Good Idea! on: July 17, 2014, 04:20:05 AM
Does this finally mean that California will no longer have 23094823 baseball teams?
1096  Other / Off-topic / Looking to physics for an understanding of psychology on: July 17, 2014, 04:08:32 AM
I've been kicking around some ideas for the past few years about the potential for physics to give insight into human psychology.

Questions I've asked myself include:
1) Are there correlations or similarities between the interactions of atoms or molecules and the interactions of humans?
2) Are there correlations or similarities between certain physical/chemical processes and psychological processes?
3) Is it possible to look to physical processes to provide valid insight into psychological processes that promote either self-actualization and self-destruction?
4) Do individual atoms/molecules behave in ways we might expect a human to behave?
5) Do groups of atoms/molecules behave in ways we might expect groups of humans to behave?

To give an example of the type of correlations I'm talking about and the possible insight they might give, consider, for example, the similarities between an angry, destructive person and nuclear fission.  An angry, destructive person may release a lot of energy, wreaking havoc on people nearby, perhaps actually making contact with them and causing physical damage; compare this to how nuclear fission of an atom affects other atoms/molecules nearby.  A converse example may  explore  the correlations and similarities between nuclear fusion and the formation of positive social relationships.
Do you believe further exploration into the relationships between physics and psychology is warranted, or do you think that this is just wishful thinking and that any correlations or similarities are mere coincidence?
1097  Other / Off-topic / Re: SOMEONE GAVE ME 0.2 BTC, WHERE SHOULD I INVEST TO MAKE SOME PROFIT? on: July 17, 2014, 03:39:18 AM




Honestly, I think you should just store it somewhere safe, forget about it for now, and come back to it later.

Getting 0.2 BTC for "free" is about as low-risk as it gets.  Think if you had ~$120-$130 in your pocket -- how much 'daily income' would you expect to get from that type of investment amount?

Long-term, holding BTC has proven to be a great strategy for many, and it's realistic that some big news might come along (e.g. approval of the Winklevoss ETF) that will spark another rally, pushing BTC to new all-time highs.

If you hold and BTC hits its previous ATH, you're looking at (almost) doubling your money.  It's very rare to find an investment that can double your money in as little as a few months to a couple years.  I think holding at this point gives you the best chance at turning your $120 gift into a small retirement nest egg.
1098  Other / Meta / Re: search feature is pretty much useless on: July 17, 2014, 03:30:40 AM
I don't know if this was posted before. At least, I could not find it using the "search".

Say you search for MtGox, looking for latest about MtGox, you will get pretty much everything *except* what you are looking for. Sometimes I think it has some sadistic intelligence and guesses what you need to give you something entirely different.

And what is this "relevance"? Doesn't make any sense.

I agree, it's not the best search tool, but it usually helps if you know what subforum  the topic you're searching for is in.  I can't count how many times I've searched for something important and then realized it was searching through all "off-topic" topics or something similar.
1099  Other / Off-topic / Re: What social network do you use most? on: July 17, 2014, 03:25:45 AM
I mostly use Facebook for instant messaging purposes, and my girlfriend has Instagram, so hence I have Instagram :\
1100  Other / Off-topic / Re: What is your favorite car????? on: July 17, 2014, 03:16:48 AM
I *love* the new Jaguar F-Type models.  They look as good as a Ferrari and cost  like 1/5 as much.

If only I were repaid the 21.5 BTC owed to me through a defaulted loan, it might become my down payment :\

Be mine...
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 ... 221 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!