There is no advantage here.


How does waiting 10 minutes vs. an hour make any difference to a small transaction? Are you going to sit around waiting at McDonald's for 10 minutes before they let you have your food? No. This can be solved outside of the protocol, and has already been. You assume your conclusion is true without any evidence ("begging the question").


So will 30 second blocks.


Reality Opinion

The number of confirmations to accept a transaction is up to the user. Assuming an identical hashrate, it would take 24 confirmations in litecoin to equal 6 confirmations in bitcoin. And one confirmation in litecoin is 4 times easier to reverse than one confirmation in bitcoin. There is no advantage here.

4x the coins doesn't allow more people to get involved, it allows people to have 4x the coins.
The faster block speed isn't any real advantage, you just have to wait for 4x the confirmations. Two and a half minutes is still way too long for a POS transaction.


I suppose that Litecoin changed virtually nothing of import from Bitcoin and expected something to happen.

Other digital signature algorithms can probably be added with the same hassle as BIP16, but old coins cannot be changed over to a new DSA unless their owners do it.

good thing it'll only take you about 3,500 radeons at less than 1 mil

The "brainstorming" is simple: stop adding any transactions to blocks once you have 51% of the hash power, and ignore any other validly mined blocks. If you can't even move BTC, it is effectively toast.

inane arguments as to why this is impossible: lol there aren't enough gpus, lol everyone would know when some government or bank bought lots of gpus, lol early adopters would lead the way and mine unprofitably for the first time in their lives even though they did not invest anything into gpu hardware, and the best one: lol nobody would do this it's more profitable to play nice


Well if they don't call you out for spreading FUD and try to marginalize your points, it would make it harder for newbies to throw cash into the bitcoin black hole.

Why are you using the national debt instead of CPI? Sure the CPI might be biased, but it can't be that biased otherwise people would stop buying treasuries, e.g. if the real inflation rate was 8%. They would be giving money to the government in the same way you suggest some poor sap with a fiat bank account would be doing for you.

And to add to D&T's post, while the hash space may only be 160 bits, you can't just search for a collision because you need the private key, not the public key, to do anything with it.
This means you need to calculate a public key from a private key which is about 100x slower (or somewhere thereabouts) than just searching for a collision.

But the whole "all the computers and a million years" is most certainly off. 160 bits is good for a really long time, but not eternally. 56-bit encryption used to be the security standard, and it was cracked in 23 hours a decade ago. But, it is likely that ECDSA will be the weak point before any hashing algorithm with QC or other vulnerabilities discovered down the road.

I can't find the chart somebody made, but it nicely shows that only a tiny percentage of the first 3 or 4 million coins have ever moved.
The run up to $32 did not take many coins to bring it back down to the $10 range, like 30-40k.
So proceed with saying that most of these coins are probably lost.

The problem with this idea is that original clients, or just those who do not want it to change, will not accept invalid blocks like these. This can become a problem quickly when MtGox for example decides resolutely to stay on the 50BTC (or 25.. etc.) chain. If something like this were to happen, it needs to be a possibility from the start. And it kind of has to be that way because miners can't be allowed to control things like this as they will always do what is in their best interest, not the best interest of the currency.

rofl yes the card that knows everything about you and sells your information to the lowest bidder has great appeal to the average bitcoin nerd

The Nature article linked does not seem to be directly relevant to the story, but perhaps it's over my head.

Primarily because gold is in another bubble right now as people lose faith in fiat currency.

You're asking "why do people do what they do?" and if you can answer that, here is your nobel prize.

Prior to fiat, currencies were pegged to (or were) a commodity. Obviously gold was the most common recently, but salt and barley among other commodities were used in the past. By "market value" I assume you mean how do currencies valuate against each other, and this is almost entirely a factor of forex. Before dropping gold, it was generally the measure of a currency's value, though a lot of countries pegged their currencies to the US dollar in some fixed ratio. Since then, they float based on supply/demand through forex. But a "market value" does not necessarily translate to a local value, as prices tend to be sticky, and pricing in general is not an entirely well understood concept in economics.

  rapecash 

Yeah true, shoulda stuck to the bottom 50% paying the top 50% like I said to you before, which it is, but it ain't gonna mean much to anybody but the top few.


Now funny thing about that 100,000 number. It's actually 86k so let's go from there. 30k accounts will be gone in the first day. http://www.solidtools.net/addresses.php?page=1132
Another 40k or so more will be gone in the first three weeks. http://www.solidtools.net/addresses.php?page=278
13k * 0.005 = 65 microcash total in fees. Which means in three weeks you'll need ~215 coins to break even. That's the top 600. 600/13,000 = 4.5%. 95.5% paying the 4.5%. (and the top 12 get the majority of that, my bad)

Uhhh what about the people who have more than them? Especially those who got in before the reward went from 32 SC to 0.07 SC?


No they don't, they get paid for being in the top 50%. It's a ridiculously forced incentive to encourage adoption guised under the veil of "oh those resource-hogging microaccounts that everybody hates."

In case anyone was unsure, http://www.solidtools.net/addresses.php

Taking out the 12 trust nodes (why do two have transactions?) only the top 21 accounts (1.4m of 2.8m) will be making money off of this system. LUKS GUD

Claiming that there are more people at the top of the pyramid does not invalidate the argument that it is a pyramid. But we've already established that your logic skills are awful.


And continuing to make blatantly misleading statements is not going to help your case either.

"HEY GUISE U GET CHARGED 5 DECI-PENNIES A DAY BUT U MAKE 1 MILLI-PENNY TO MAKE UP 4 IT!*


* ASSUMING WE DONT BANKRUPT U"

lol I was on bitcointalk hiatus when v1 got released and I didn't really pay attention to v2 as everyone around here had dismissed it as a total scam, but I decided to poke the fire on his board and man was it easy to get him to go nuts. I never even called him a scammer yet he's like "U CAL ME SCAMMER!!?!??!?!!" If the shoe fits, I guess.

"IF I WAS SCAMMER WHY I NO CASH OUT CPF?" uhh because you'd make like $20 LOL

No response to my calling out his webpage completely lacking any information on the CPF, it in fact even spreads disinformation that it is funded by "outsiders." "I NO RESPOND"

and, in conclusion

"In MicroCash getting your friends on board means you get more MicroCash, combined with outside value increase."

AKA

"Pyramid Scheme"

How many times is this going to appear on this board? There are two definitions. Yours is not right, they both are. It is almost always possible to determine from context to which form of inflation someone may be referring. This is so inanely pedantic and is such a waste of everyone's time to read.