Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2018, 04:09:36 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
1101  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Nurturing AlternaCoins on: June 25, 2012, 01:43:42 AM
Well to date, no altcoin has done much other than tweak a few variables which doesn't take much in the development department. Solidcoin developers attempted a rewrite with microcash and have since disappeared before release without a word.

And then there are those that believe bitcoin has significant flaws that cannot be fixed by software updates and choose not to work on bitcoin.
1102  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: My horrific realization - pruning is not enough on: June 16, 2012, 06:44:18 AM
Micropayments over a digital currency are a lost cause, imo. 3nd party websites will pop up I'm sure that will handle microtransactions over the website and people can pay themselves out. They do not need to clutter the block chain. The smallest transaction requires just as much effort as the biggest, so the fee is always going to be somewhere that makes microtransactions very expensive.
1103  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Get Ready for "MicroCash" : The most advanced Crypto-based Currency yet! on: June 13, 2012, 06:01:57 AM
You mean some of the security has been removed by using shorted key lengths. Bad move if you expect this thing to carry on for a few years.

The key lengths are not shorter. Bitcoin uses an atrociously inefficient system for moving coins around. MC, if it existed, would presumably be using the account ledger/balance sheet type system over the transaction ledger of bitcoin. This means a standard transaction can be a fixed size, about 150 bytes vs 400-500 bytes on average.
1104  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Encrypted wallet.dat, lost password, any solutions? on: June 05, 2012, 03:51:21 AM
The encrypted wallet format only encrypts the seckeys, nothing else.

That's strange. From the standpoint of privacy, shouldn't the pubkeys be encrypted as well?
1105  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Encrypted wallet.dat, lost password, any solutions? on: June 05, 2012, 03:12:36 AM
Rather than giving your whole wallet over to someone, just extract one keypair, preferably one for an address with 0 balance.  They can then crack it, but won't have access to all of your funds when they succeed.

Are the public keys unencrypted? Huh Otherwise it would be difficult to find an address with a 0 balance I would think.
1106  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Demise of BitPak on: June 01, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
Even if there is a jurisdiction where a legal issue arises, isn't the logical answer just to not sell in that jurisdiction? If I'm the president of Zimbabwe and make video game depictions of birds illegal, does the world lose angry birds? Maybe it's illegal in the MC/Visa jursidiction?  Roll Eyes
1107  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Demise of BitPak on: June 01, 2012, 02:24:56 PM
Was it hosting the block chain in the app? Maybe AT&T and Verizon said get rid of it because of data or something.
1108  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Seeking the owner of coins who sent them to me (again) on: June 01, 2012, 01:12:19 PM
Tonight's dosage of medication

wtf is this the most thinly veiled loan request to purchase drugs or am I high
1109  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 31, 2012, 11:25:12 AM
I was talking about alt-chains ..

This negates your earlier complaint that Bitcoin is unable to expand its supply in response to increases in demand.

mm hmm
1110  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 30, 2012, 04:47:35 PM
Judging by some of the comments in this thread, it seems that Etlase et al might have been somehow 'damaged' by the shocking revelation (/sarc) that nobody is directly in charge of bitcoins' scarcity in any Big Brother government-like way.

This might be a shocking revelation: nobody used to be directly in charge of gold's scarcity, but goldsmiths used the ideas behind modern banking to rise to immense amounts of power and wealth. Bankers financed dozens of wars and have had a hand in writing who knows how many laws. It is because of the power of gold that fiat money and the banking system work the way they do.

Quote
1) Bitcoin's adoption doesn't have to grow. If people don't want to buy any bitcoins, nobody is forcing them. There is no "evil government-like entity" giving early adopters an unfair advantage by forcing everyone else to participate and artificially inflate the price.

And I have acknowledged that if you don't believe bitcoin will be a replacement currency in any real respect, then yeah it can do what it's doing now.

Quote
This feature could also protect against severe price shocks. For example, if Bitcoin ever has a sudden burst of popularity, some of the additional demand is bound to be absorbed by new currencies that suddenly pop up, thus stabilising its price against relatively large benchmarks like the USD.

This is such a terrible answer though. "Bitcoins are high this week, have to buy/accept bitcoin2s to conduct business". It's basically admitting that bitcoin has a massive flaw: it's not a good medium of exchange. More people want to use it, but can't or are turned off by it enough to use something else. That's a pretty big failure, imo.
1111  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 08:38:30 PM
No, I'm referring to the theoretical difficulties in creating a non-scarce AND objectively balanced currency. I'm talking about the possibility of your idea in general, not necessarily Encoin. It seems impossible to me (that's why I referred to Marx's work), so I'd like to know what assumptions are made and what trade-offs are introduced (by Encoin or as a general idea) to attain that goal.

Not to be nitpicky, but no theoretical limit does not mean non-scarce. More like a renewable resource, but extracting resources is not free. And the gist of the system is that when enough people attempt to create money, people saving and transacting on the network will also be given new money until the miners decide it is no longer worthwhile for the time being. The tricky part is making sure another CPU->GPU type scenario will not be disastrous.

Quote
any reasonable assumption as to the amount of bitcoins the Satoshi Group mined

FUD much?

Difficulty of 1 for the first 1.6 million coins with an average solution time being over 13 or so minutes meaning there were not even enough CPUs to satisfy 2-3MH/s.
It is logical to conclude that whatever group started bitcoin were the only people mining for coins until a year or so after the launch. Any other explanation would be awfully forced.

Quote
With this kind of reasoning, any group of people with a few million USD lying around as of now can do the same (ALL bitcoins are worth less than $50M), so we have to trust everyone who has that kind of money (tens of thousands of entities?) in the world to be responsible too. Or are we to assume that only the fictional Satoshi Group has a beef with Bitcoin?

I don't follow "this kind of reasoning". How can a group of people with a few million USD do the same? They could certainly increase the price very quickly, but they run the risk of earlier adopters selling out the floor. The early adopters, shockingly enough, don't have any risk except if they decide not to sell as you have already mentioned.

Quote
I think you're focusing on a single point and forgetting how the world itself operates.

No, the debate invariably gets focused in the direction of the specific early adopters despite my trying to avoid it, because many of you just can't help but believe it is a matter of jealousy. I try to consciously argue against bitcoin as if the initial currency distribution made a whit more sense, and specifically avoid "focusing on a single point." I am most definitely not forgetting how the world operates, I am doing the best I can to actually change it--which I wholly admit is probably a lost cause. But bitcoin, in general, in my opinion, is ripe for manipulation. One way or another, the status quo of the "wealth transfer" property seemingly required of money is present and accounted for in bitcoin.
1112  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 06:01:09 PM
Come on, I'm talking about impalpability within the realm of ideas. For instance, even if Bitcoin wasn't an actual functioning economy, or even implemented, its "assumed" answer to the transformation problem is pretty much established (not solvable, non-polynomial, etc.). In comparison, you didn't even care to try. I'm not criticizing your action, just pointing out that it's too complicated to be so confident about. I would rather have the answers first.

I assume you're referring to the 1 enc costs 1 enc to produce thing, which is an outdated idea. It went through revisions, originally being 10kWh, and so on like that until it has just basically become a bunch of ideas to reach equilibrium quickly between the existing money supply and the demand for new money. I detail it a bit more here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76750.msg852204#msg852204 but even since then I've made a lot of revisions to my ideas. I don't know that it will be insanely stable or anything like that, but I think it can work out to be a much better store of value than fiat while being resistant to bank (or earlier adopter) created liquidity crises.

How did it come this far then? I don't understand why you think the early (earliest?) adopters' BTC holdings will not dissipate. If you are indeed right, the rational choice for early adopters is to sell their bitcoins at this point, no? Didn't the ones who didn't sell at $30 lose money?

How did it come this far? The same could be asked of any successful, long-term scam :rimshot: The bitcoin market is still extremely small, we haven't seen how it is going to react when and if some bigger market finds it agreeable. As far as dissipating holdings, the answer is--it hasn't happened yet, and we can't know when it will. Even if billions are added to the market, any reasonable assumption as to the amount of bitcoins the Satoshi Group mined will be enough to empty it. Due to the nature of bitcoin, the earliest of adopters could trickle in the money over time or they could make you only think that they are doing so and really retain their coins, and you could not be sure (heyyy look the market is absorbing all these early coins without dropping, rally!!). But as it is, the great majority of the initial 2 million coins or so are unspent. fun graph: http://ecdsa.org/stats.html To me, this situation boils down to the fact that everyone has to trust satoshi or others with huge sums of money that has never entered the market to be responsible. I thought we were supposed to be getting away from the whole "having to trust someone" thing.
1113  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 03:07:17 PM
But to realistically function as a replacement currency, bitcoin cannot be seen as an investment.
Without people wanting to hold a prospective medium of exchange, it would not become a medium of exchange. Unless you perform some trick (e.g. voluntary peg to another medium of exchange), a medium of exchange that decreases in value has to be forced on people.

Well, it can surely be seen as an investment in the case that it will not go down in value, e.g. better to hold it than fiat. Your "rainy day" fund or somesuch. But to buy it in the hopes that it is, of itself, a money making venture is not going to promote a well-functioning bitcoin economy. It just turns it into another game for wall street types to play.
1114  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 02:52:32 PM
"Early", "earlier" -- both are referring to the same people... those who came before those who haven't yet adopted.  Assuming an ever increasing price -- their gain being proportional to the earliness of their adoption.

That's true to an ever decreasing degree.  You also assume that demand will come in waves.  Why isn't it more likely to come as a continuous (percentage wise) stream?

Because if it comes as a continuous, slow percentage, bitcoin is getting nowhere. Again, maybe it works as a store of value here, but not as a replacement currency. I gave what I think are reasonable assumptions to why demand will come in waves. Certain markets or certain geographic regions are what is likely to get bitcoin's name on the map. Maybe chipset manufacturers in Taiwan are sick of the local currency's inflation and decide to start hedging in bitcoins. They will accept payments for better prices and merchants will start looking to get some bitcoin business. This type of activity will spawn rampant speculation on top of the increased demand for bitcoin in trade.

The logistics just simply aren't there for any orderly expansion. 50% of the currency is already in existence and it is held by a small number of people. Every time the market expands, either a small group has to sell a large sum or a large group has to sell a small sum in an orderly fashion to get the orderly expansion. How many bitcoins does it take to double the price right now? I gave the example of walmart's revenue raising the price of a bitcoin by 8,000 times--and that's IF all the bitcoins become for sale. $1 billion is enough to multiply it by 20. This is a very tiny amount compared to the world economy.

Quote
Again with the cycling; I don't see the source of that.  You also make it sound like each of your imagined cycles is the same size.  By the time half the earth adopts bitcoin, then half of the potential gains to earlier adopters will have happened.  If it was cyclic then each cycle benefits in exact proportion to its foresight.  Therefore that is the amount of credit we are willing to give them.

lol my point was what credit does anyone deserve for being in the first half of the world? The system has obviously already taken off and needs nothing to prove, yet every last person of that first half will still benefit off of the second half.

Quote
You make it sound like these early/earlier adopters are stealing their benefit or that there is some external party giving it to them unfairly.

No, I don't actually. I make it sound like this won't work in an economic system designed to replace world currency. Please do not put words in my mouth that give you an argument to attack.

Quote
The question, fundamentally, is: who are you to tell people what they should or shouldn't pay or ask for a bitcoin at any moment?

I'm not sure where you got that question from because I implied or told no such thing. I just question how irrationally stupid people would have to be to buy into bitcoin after it has bubbled and bursted several times within a decade. For these bubbles and bursts not to happen, either A) "earlier" adopters need to do a complete about-face and not let anything like what happened last year happen again or B) bitcoin will have to be adopted at such a snail's pace that it really isn't having any major affect on the world.



Maybe you sound too confident, considering you are backing your arguments with something so impalpable? Elaborate designs are known to be prone to failures and abuse. It may very well be impossible to accomplish creating an instrument that satisfies what you want. I assume you are familiar with the transformation problem? Whether your design is plausible or not borders on that, and it's a very very complicated issue. You yourself can't know if your design is sound as there is no analytical approach to the matter.

As impalpable as running a currency of bits over the internet?  Tongue I've actually simplified some major ideas since then, but I've also had more ideas to add.

Quote
In other words, Bitcoin is scarce and fiat currencies aren't? That lack of ability is intentional. That is the merit of Bitcoin.

Scarcity isn't the issue, it's the lack of control (from the people's perspective) and the preference for those already in power. It isn't that fiat inflates that is the issue, it is that preference for new money is given to those who are already wealthy. It is that banks do not have to compete for savings because of fractional reserve and central banking lenders of last resort. If fiat inflated just by giving everyone a little bit more money proportionally, it wouldn't unbalance the system.

Quote
Actually, if something like you want were successfully implemented, then it would be the perfect complementary to Bitcoin. I would go so far as to say that Bitcoin needs something like that for further adoption. Can it be done? If not, then this debate is pointless. Bitcoin imitates the idea of gold; that idea been around for a long time. It's easy to criticize, but notoriously hard to defeat.

Bitcoin may imitate gold, but it attempts to do so on an insanely accelerated scale. The rush is already over and a few dozen people won. I don't think you will be able to convince the world at large that this is the best way out of the bankers' and politicians' hands.
1115  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 01:27:48 PM
So, what do you propose exactly? Lay down the alternative proposal so we can discuss the comparative merits. If something isn't plausible (though in this case we don't even know that something), then we can safely assume its lack of existence as a natural condition until it becomes realizable. Nothing is clear cut, economy is about trade-offs.

This is a heavily loaded question. And most of my ideas will be considered implausible by most until they see it for themselves. A very old version of my ideas can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0. And I get flack for the fact that these ideas have not materialized, but unlike SolidCoin for example, the point is to change everything which is no small task.

Quote
If you have any experience in investing, you would see the current realities are constructed this way.

But to realistically function as a replacement currency, bitcoin cannot be seen as an investment. This is all well and good for some people, but then these people turn around and make jabs at fiat and government-controlled currency when bitcoin does not have the ability to perform the same function.

Quote
Also, do you think Bitcoin would be adopted if it were designed differently (regardless of that design being inherently good in your model)? If no, then what are we talking about exactly? If yes?

It's a good question and one that is hard to answer. I think the ideals that a P2P digital currency has can ring strongly with libertarian and populist types. The adoption period might be a lot slower, but if it can properly expand when necessary, then you won't have to worry about bubbles and crashes causing many to lose confidence and, ultimately, a lack of real adoption.
1116  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
The merit you seem to think earlier adopters deserve is about as substantive as the merit that bankers are the only ones trust/credit-worthy enough to create money.

Throwing in the current bogeymen of the world, the bankers, does nothing to make your case.

Early adopters do deserve credit.  Without the early adopter, there is no late adopter.  If you want to buy Bitcoin's now, you want to because they are desirable.  Why are they desirable though?  The answer is: the early adopters made them so.

I try to be careful about my words in the hopes that the meaning is actually conveyed. I said "earlier adopters" for a very specific reason, and I expounded on this reason:

Quote
It isn't just the situation right now, this has to happen every time a market or a geographic area started moving over to bitcoin...  Every new large source of demand relative to the bitcoin economy is a new large source of volatility

How much credit are we willing to give to the first half of the Earth that adopts bitcoin over the second half of the Earth? Because they are going to have the same advantage. The only ones who don't get this benefit is whoever comes last. It's stupid and it will be incredibly disruptive in the short term each time. That makes for a long term serious instability. Cycling, if you will.

Quote
The early adopters risked money when it was, perhaps, foolish to do so.  Either they saw potential that others did not, or they were better informed than others, or they were lunatics who acted entirely randomly.  Whatever their reasons for buying a collection of zeroes and ones, or buying the electricity to run a bitcoin node, that was a risk that could easily have come to nought.  As it's turned out, there is a distinct possibility that their willingness to invest time or money early on has resulted in enough momentum to create a potentially world changing financial instrument.

Yeah whatever the tired argument that a few dollars of electricity and participating in a hobby is a gigantic risk worth millions. I really don't care about this, which is why I am specific with my words. But it is so easy and tempting to quote part of a paragraph and bite in as if there weren't anything else clarifying it.
1117  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 29, 2012, 09:39:01 AM
Are you sure you're not a closet Communist? I have a feeling you'd be much happier in a society where everyone is given a nominal wage to subsist on, regardless of merit. Who knows, you might strike it lucky and get a government job?

The merit you seem to think earlier adopters deserve is about as substantive as the merit that bankers are the only ones trust/credit-worthy enough to create money. They do nothing and add nothing productive to society, but reap rewards of other people. It isn't just the situation right now, this has to happen every time a market or a geographic area started moving over to bitcoin. It is up to the holders and speculators alone to control how many bitcoins a new sector of the economy will have access to. Mining can't fill this need now and mining is about to halve. Every new large source of demand relative to the bitcoin economy is a new large source of volatility unless the bitcoin existing holders at large agree to sell at certain prices or to keep the price of money down in general.

People are going to wise up after the 2nd or 3rd time this happens and start ignoring bitcoin as an alternative, imo.


As if buying into bitcoin to privilege the adopters earlier than you isn't a parasitic cost.
Anyone can buy or mine bitcoins. Nobody has a legal privilege to prevent anyone else from creating or buying bitcoins. Calling this "parasitic" is symptomatic of ideologies that prefer violence and are driven by envy of other people's wealth.

 Cheesy "I will take my own, completely made up context to make what you say sound bad."

Quote
It is absurd and hypocritical to label voluntary production and trade as "parasitic" while simultaneously advocating the use of violence as an alternative.

"I will build the most egregious strawman possible and follow it up by saving the children."
1118  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 28, 2012, 05:43:20 PM
Are you suggesting that a rise in the USD:BTC exchange rate should actually be correlated with some kind of depression?? You're being ridiculous.

Are you implying that you don't know anything about what happened during the great depression or on lesser scales in all kinds of other depressions? Have you not paid a whit of attention to the worldwide housing crisis and what has happened to the price of houses? All of a sudden your dollar buys a lot more house, but this doesn't come for free, it comes at the expense of the debtor.

Quote
1) Bitcoin is not "debt money". The economy doesn't get bankrupted for being unable to pay enough interest to the banking parasites.

Either people will borrow bitcoins or they won't. I think a very large part of the economy needs to be lending. If people are borrowing bitcoins, people have to repay bitcoins and an easy way to do that is to accept payment in bitcoins. But if the price spikes at any point during a loan (the business will have to charge less for its goods and services, LIKE A COMPUTAH), it may become impossible to repay and the debtor will default.

Quote
2) What massive parasitic cost (such as paying for wars) is reducing your productivity in the Bitcoin economy?

As if buying into bitcoin to privilege the adopters earlier than you isn't a parasitic cost.

Quote
Keynesians... Sheesh...

More like monetarist, but thanks for trying.


I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE

No you can't.
1119  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 28, 2012, 05:24:07 PM
Fallacy redefined as meaning "wrong in my opinion, but eventually will be proven one way or the other"
1120  Economy / Economics / Re: Am I misunderstanding this or? on: May 28, 2012, 05:18:45 PM
My concerns are delusions but your clairvoyance is infallible and you give up on refuting anything because that means you'd have to, somewhere, actually make an argument.

Take note of the typical pro-bitcoin "argument", lurkers.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
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!