Bitcoin Forum
January 23, 2019, 06:22:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
1641  Economy / Economics / Re: Three ways to save Bitcoin on: October 25, 2011, 02:26:56 AM
I don't know or care, but encouraging poor economies to accumulate their wealth in bitcoin strikes me as devious. People are guaranteed to lose wealth when investing in bitcoin. It is just a matter of who takes the brunt of it and when it happens. The velocity of money compared to the supply is so insanely out of whack. Until people decide they want to lose wealth just to ensure bitcoin gets stable, I don't think you're going to see a very stable BTC economy. Asking those without wealth as it is to take that hit is not very moral in my book.
1642  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin will never be as good as gold and why ultimatly it will fail. on: October 25, 2011, 02:22:28 AM
There is incentive for people to move to the new P2P currency as in the early stages it is more profitable to generate P2P currency and as you have seen in bitcoins, the early adopters made the most money.


This process will continue on indefinitely until all P2P currency is worthless. At the end of P2P currencies life, there could be millions of different competing P2P currencies.


If you have bitcoins, you'd be a fool not to sell them at $30.

Prescience and old post aside, I'd like to point out that a P2P currency can only become diluted and worthless if there is incentive to copy it because of the get-rich-early scheme employed by bitcoin and it's 6 or 7 some-odd near exact duplicates nowadays.

A currency that is always difficult to produce, and is only produced when demand is high, would not suffer from the same ills. Feel free to check out my ideas for a currency backed by electricity and secured by a reputation-based consensus.
1643  Economy / Economics / Re: Three ways to save Bitcoin on: October 25, 2011, 02:06:52 AM
So your solution is have bitcoin do what it already does... except make more people use it. hrm.

Until the speculative bubble ends, which it never will as long as huge quantities of coins are hoarded, bitcoin is going to have trouble gaining acceptance. If the hoarded coins get into the supply, the price tanks even further lowering confidence even more. It's a pretty big bitch of a problem at this point.
1644  Economy / Speculation / Re: BIDWALL MELTS!!! on: October 24, 2011, 08:30:12 PM
No useful value.... I disagree strongly. In fact, I can think of very few things which are more useful than Bitcoin.

holy crap, you must not have much in your life
1645  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: "SC pool finds a block 'it shouldn't have'" on: October 24, 2011, 07:29:11 PM
does this mean an even block or whatever that SC's cronies are supposed to have a monopoly on?
1646  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / EnCoin Proposal v4.0 - scads of technical details - now with a WIKI! on: October 24, 2011, 02:42:28 PM
The primary goals of EnCoin are as follows:

   To maintain a relatively stable cost-to-produce where 1 ENC costs about 1 ENC to produce.
   To maintain a relatively stable exchange point where the effects of price inflation or deflation are smoothed out by economic and monetary policy.
   To provide a stable currency that merchants and the people can rely on in value, security, and dependability.

Some features:

   10 second initial verifications that debit the "from" account and are pretty much impossible to reverse.
   No bloated block chain, only a tiny file that is updated once a day that stores account balances and other information. Detailed info (such as specific transactions) is available on request.
   Mandatory transaction fees are partially refunded to merchants by securing the network. Hashing power only creates new coins.
   Any transaction fees not refunded are paid as interest to all holders of ENC.
   Bandwidth usage becomes more efficient as the network increases in popularity.

edit: A backup of the encoin wiki is available here: but it is not my site so I can't guarantee that it will remain available.
1647  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 21, 2011, 03:07:58 AM
they spent all those hard earned USD's and time in the form of hardware, electricity, labor, and innovation in verifying and securing all those early tx's that went on before the ramp in the Spring.

give me a break dude.
1648  Economy / Economics / Re: Molyneux on Deflation - Video on: October 21, 2011, 02:59:38 AM
Perfect? No, of course not. Raising millions of percent in value then tumbling thousands of percent in a span of a few months? Just a hair on the wrong side of ridiculous.

The reference currency is kind of a cool idea though.
1649  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 21, 2011, 02:52:42 AM
you clearly know nothing of how Bitcoin works nor anything about economics.  your posts are getting more and more frenetic and insane.

To be honest, I barely even read your second statement because all it is is another poor rationalization for how fucked up the bitcoin economy is and how early adopters deserve to profit off of doing absolutely nothing productive, and profit in the millions of percent ROI.
1650  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 21, 2011, 02:45:15 AM
Supply has been overpowering demand for the past few months, one of the reasons we're in decline.

It's a massive correction, not a decline. Bitcoins should have never been worth more than a buck or two.

You are asking others to release their holdings, what do you think would happen if there were 3 million bitcoins offered for sale at the same time? - super cheap bitcoins, and who knows how that would be treated by the market and rest of the world. Wouldn't people be asking themselves if early adopters mass selling their holdings, is it safe and worth getting in to?

If the early adopters had said "hey we're going to keep selling off some of our hordes every time bitcoin creeps above $1 so that there is a controlled inflation of the money supply until we run out" the system would have worked BEAUTIFULLY from an economic standpoint, and those early adopters would have made a lot of money for their "effort" in creating a stable economy. Problem is, not many people would have signed up because there was no profit to be had (no ponzi scheme here, just an obvious profit for those "hardworking" early CPUs). In reality, there is still no profit to be had and never has for the great majority of people.

Far too many coins exist for what is actually being used. The money supply and economy are so unbelievably out of whack that it's almost funny that anyone thinks there is a stable economy somewhere in here. If the money supply and the economy grow together, then you could eventually halt the money supply and allow deflation to take over. As it is now, it is a blatant, intentional transfer of wealth.

The part where everybody profits is when there is actual PRODUCTIVITY created from bitcoin. And this is absolutely possible for the values it has as a cryptocurrency. The ponzi scheme screws this from ever happening for years if not decades though, if ever because bitcoin is likely to fail because of it.

No. I am not talking about the amount of 'paper' in circulation, I am talking about M0 being a fraction of M2.

But M0 is physical currency... M1 which includes "funds that are readily accessible for spending" is around 25% today of M2, and was 30-35% in 1990--all for the US, obviously it differs from country to country.

edit: I see M1 includes fractional reserve. So there is no real total measure of liquid, non-debt based assets. Pretty shitty.
1651  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: GEM - as a potential stable value currency on: October 21, 2011, 02:14:19 AM
I don't understand the question. If you were anonymous before, you still are. If you were known before you still are. If you don't have a single BTC you can't announce your prescience. But once people know who you are, anyone can ask you what block you are on.

I was asking how people new to the network would know who to trust.

The point wasn't that it doesn't do damage it was that it is fixable despite the algorithm.

Fixable by a central authority. It's a copout for something that's supposed to be decentralized.

As you remarked at the beginning there is very little a malicious node can do in this sense. It can either delay a valid transactions, or accept invalid transactions. In either case the node would quickly be blacklisted by the non-malicious nodes.

Yeah I'm really not that worried about it, but I would like to see details on how this blacklisting is actually accomplished. I realize this stuff takes a shitload of thought though, I spent an immense amount of time on it myself, but I did solve it with the second proposal, except it was incredibly data heavy even with 1/5th-1/10th the transaction sizes of bitcoin.

I guess my main concern returns to scaling up and trusting down to a smaller number of peers. It's another one of those "it can work, until it doesn't" type deals.

If too many EnCoin nodes start accepting invalid Primary Blocks,

The only way to have a node accept an invalid primary block is if everyone (including end clients) is in on it together and forking. Essentially, the solution I've come up with if there is a >50% attack on the reputation is to stop approving transactions. No one can get away with approving bad transactions on either of our designs, but they can get away with DoSing/splitting or infiltrating the trust/reputation then quitting.

So I guess now is the time to bring up what happens when the network is intentionally or unintentionally split? I really don't even think this is possible, but it has been brought up to me before as a possibility if governments use ISPs as a way to target the network. Bitcoin will eventually resolve this by the longest hash winning. Certainly isn't a clean way of doing it though as confirmed transactions will unconfirm and so on. But the network will carry on with a resolved chain eventually. I'll go into more detail on how I hope to solve this in my proposal without any confirmed transactions ever unconfirming.

Maybe all US merchants begin DOSing unregistered accounts and only accepting their own PBs.

It's a possibility, but they can't do it without the clients knowingly accepting it. In the mean time, these merchants will be forced on to their own fork that no one will use. The point is, if the eventuality of all this is going to boil down to a few supernodes, it is so much easier to accomplish.

That's why I call it a confirmation.

but you said this -- "Merchants at a minimum need to stop considering their transactions as "confirmed" until things settle down."

That sounds like they have confirmations that could be reversed to me.

What is EnCoin going to tell people when some group is deliberately attacking the consensus?

I'm hoping that an attack on the consensus would never be possible. At least once the network was widespread in use. What I worry about is splitting the network permanently. I don't think this could ever be done, but I don't know for sure. At least it brings the attack on encoin into the realm of entirely theoretical rather than just needing a certain amount of hashes. But I'll detail all of this stuff in the new proposal when I finish it. I really need to stop posting here and work on that instead when I have time. Smiley
1652  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 21, 2011, 01:18:41 AM
how do you know this?   its quite possible every single early adopter has already sold out  all their coins to people who brought in real cash to pay for those coins and have become the new hoarders.  how would you begrudge them?

It is written PLAIN AS DAY in how the bitcoin economy has progressed. Even if the scenario you propose were true, it is still Satoshi's fault for designing the currency this way. I mean fuck, can none of you add the pieces together? Inability to trace who controls what coins, completely buttfucking anonymous creator, creator has disappeared without a word of what his intentions are... and you just buy this shit up and assume he's doing it for the good of the world? How naive do you have to be?

do you begrudge all the hedge funds and investment banks that rented out all those oil tankers at sea to store oil in anticipation of higher prices?

Because companies in the real world hurt the real world economy in pursuit of their own greed, that makes it ok for bitcoin to do it and should be a system you recommend to everybody? I'm not sure I see your logic, broseph.
1653  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 21, 2011, 01:06:11 AM
50% is kind of high. Typically, currency is only about 10% of the money supply.

You are confusing the amount of actual paper with the total amount in circulation, FYI. And the vast majority of currency not in the "supply" per se in an inflationary economy is in investments. Bitcoins are in hoarding in hopes of future scarcity.

Responsibility? As in a moral obligation? Why is that?

As in, keeping the price from going to $2 to $35 to $2? Or do you think that this is a good thing?
1654  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 21, 2011, 12:58:42 AM
I'm explaining to you where that "unearned value" comes from.

And you are explaining it via a "completely incorrect" concept. If you truly believe that is what is going on here, you need to educate yourself. Since I know you won't believe me, here you go:

Did you dedicate time and money to Bitcoin before it was worth anything? Would you have done so if you had known about it?

No. I don't know. Regardless, the risk is at most a few dollars per month multiplied by a few months or years. There is no real time investment except for whoever coded the software. If there could be some guarantee that the early adopters would relinquish their hold over the economy, I wouldn't have such an issue with bitcoin. But they haven't, and haven't given any indication that they will. So while they possess those coins, they control the economy. And until this is no longer the case, I will never buy in to bitcoin. Instead of allowing the economy to grow naturally, they hoarded with the intent to drive up the price and popularity, in what I can only assume was hope for an even bigger payout. What other motivation would they have for not getting the coins out there? It certainly is not Mises's principles.

Yes, Bitcoin has an inflationary period, which is public knowledge. It is also known at the inflationary period will slow down, leading to a period of a stable amount of money. Can you think of a better way to initially distribute a digital commodity in a decentralized fashion?

Um, yes. Ease in, ease out for one--with the majority of coins being awarded in the middle of the distribution. That would not effect early adopters with nearly so much control. It really wouldn't be that hard to figure out a dozen others. The intent is quite clear that latecomers should be sucking on the teat of early comers. And this fosters people like you who do the advertising work for them.

Do you demand to know how much your neighbor has in his bank account?

No, but I would like to know that if I plan on investing a lot of money in crypto digital trash tokens that 5 or 10 people control 10-20% of all the tokens to ever be produced while 60,000 fight for 300, soon to be 150, coins an hour.

You still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "deflation".

You are just asking to get internet bitchslapped.
1655  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 20, 2011, 11:48:48 PM
You seem to be unaware why the purchasing power of money increases when there is no change in the supply or demand of the money. Let's say the total yearly output of an economy is a dozen apples, and $1 buys one apple. If there is a breakthrough in apple production and the economy is now 25% more efficient, 15 apples are now produced. If the supply of money remains the same, $1 will now buy 1.25 apples.

And this has what to do with a fixed supply of money? Oh, nothing. In fact, I would almost call it an intentional attempt to conflate two very different things to cause obfuscation.

Now it seems you don't understand human incentives with regard to risk.

And you don't understand risk. You can say you do and you can repeat the same bullshit every bitcoin supporter around here does, but that doesn't make it true buddy!

Nope. It is a creation of wealth.

Currencies don't create wealth. I'm pretty sure all schools of economics agree on this. Currencies, however, can strongly influence the direction in which wealth moves. Mises has a big problem with inflation because it hurts the middle and lower class. Bitcoin substitutes the government and the wealthy for early adopters; spitting in Mises's face while shaking his hand.

There is complete transparency here, unlike at central banks.

Hundreds of thousands of unspent, hoarded, untraceable coins is transparent? Between 5 and 10 people monopolizing 10-20% of the total amount of coins to EVER BE PRODUCED is transparent? No, I don't believe it's transparent at all and can only be discovered by digging through the block chain and doing some math. Perhaps it is known to you and I who have spent time studying the system, but to someone who knows little about bitcoin? Not a chance. And you will never convince me that this is unintended. Satoshi's anonymity and disappearance. Fuck you Satoshi you fucking scumbag.

BTC would have never gotten anywhere near $35 if the early adopters had just opened the floodgates. If their intention was to create a truly deflationary system, they would have taken their one time profit and have been done with the massive hoarding. But that's not what they did.
1656  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: GEM - as a potential stable value currency on: October 20, 2011, 11:17:30 PM
Specifically though,  I wanted a two stage function. Each node's announcement transaction is sent prior to building the block it ends up in. So, the hash of the block becomes dependent on the announcements. Therefore, no node can "optimize" his announcement transaction in order to have the fittest hash. The variable he must optimize against cannot yet be known. (I'm not completely sure I have the specified the example correctly. But that was the concept.)

Is there some benefit to getting the winning hash other than being the block that gets accepted? The hash is somehow based on the transaction log, right? So have the transactions in an alphanumeric order. Thus the only way to change the hash is to add or remove transactions. Difficult to do if everyone's watching. Very difficult to know if your 256-bit hash is going to be the best or not vs an 8-bit hash.

That is where non-anonymity comes it. Nodes can become known by choice. This does not automatically make their announcements any more trusted than anonymous announcements. It does however make these individuals identifiable to those who ALREADY trust/distrust them through business or personal relationships.

What about people who don't have any business with the network yet? Or haven't had any for some time?

Silly Example Bitcoin Tangent:
Say the NSA decides to mount a secret chain forking attack on bitcoin. So at the next difficulty change, they secretly begin building their own secret fork containing nothing but empty transaction blocks. Say they borrow one of those new GPU based super computing clusters the national science foundation sponsors. So at the end of two weeks, they have a 2050 block empty chain, to inject in and override bitcoins existing 2016 block transaction fork.

I have a little more faith in the intelligence of the NSA should they attempt to attack the bitcoin network. If the primary objective is to take down the network, all they need to do is attack the chain directly. I believe we've already discussed this. Transactions will slow or fail to get confirmed at all, recent history will be constantly re-written, and miners will make a lot less money, furthering the ease of the attack. They will not attempt to re-write long past history.

So what happens? Momentary chaos. All the exchanges stop trading. Everyone jumps on IRC and decides the new empty chain is a scam. They "lock in" the most recent block from the 2016 block chain, (issue new clients if they have to) and everyone just goes on ignoring the NSA chain. Or everyone decides, No damage done. No double spends. We'll just re-run all the transactions on top of the NSA chain and start trading again once we are caught back up.

How is causing the complete cessation of the network "no damage done"? Do you think if visa went down for a day that there would be "no damage done"? And if the developers are going to lock in a block, they are absolutely going to have to issue a new client that EVERYONE will need. And if they build on the NSA chain, all the miners who mined in those 2016 blocks just lost all of their money. That is a lot more than no damage done. And fuck relying on the developers to fix these problems. The network should be able to handle it itself. Relying on the developers to fix every major problem is such a pussy way out. And oh, hey look, it can just be done again for something as useless as a block checkpoint.

There really isn't a fundamental 51% issue.

There absolutely, unequivocally is.

Say the NSA tries the same trick. One fork has zero announcements from known parties. The other fork had a consistent chain of announcements. The basic rule says, "NEVER blindly trust a fork that everybody you know has vanished from." So every client just ignores the NSA fork, and there is zero chaos.

I'm aware we both have a solution to the 51% attack because hash power doesn't secure the network. That doesn't mean there aren't other issues that need to be ROCK SOLIDLY addressed.

So back to the exchanges for a moment. Keep in mind that exchanges DON'T trust each other. But they do have to monitor each other. Every exchange needs to be notified within seconds if the other exchanges disagree with their opinion of history. It doesn't initially matter who is right and who is wrong. If there is a fork, they MUST take human action.


If there are 10 exchanges trading on the same chain, if one exchange sees the nine other announce on a different block, he has to follow or stop trading. That is a human decision. Maybe his node is faulty and made the wrong decision. Maybe all the others are malicious. Either way, it is fool hardy for him to pretend nothing wonky is happening.

LAME. What does this exchange tell its peers? "Something is going on right now lol, so anything you do here might not be reflected on the rest of the network. GL"

If 5 exchange announce on one block and 5 announce on another block, everyone has to stop trading until they can figure out what is happening. (Is this a bug? An NSA attack?) But the point is, they get the notice within seconds. The exchanges don't blindly follow each other out of trust. They monitor each other out of DISTRUST and based on a self-preservation requirement to do so.

Who says everyone has to stop trading? It's decentralized. If 5 are malicious, do you think they are going to tell their peers that they're malicious?

This should serve in every case where nobody is deliberately trying to subvert the consensus. But in cases where somebody is, the exchanges will immediately negotiate their differences, or there will be a nuclear exchange war.

I think you have a bit more fleshing out to do. Nuclear exchange war, while sounding cool, is not a solution to a 51% attack, it's another problem.

Merchants at a minimum need to stop considering their transactions as "confirmed" until things settle down.

A confirmation should be absolute.

They don't have to see 100% consensus in exchanges. Merchants just need to confirm their exchange isn't going rogue. And they need to see that their trading partners and competitors are all announcing onto the same block. It's the 99% strength in numbers thing. Until they are sure, they simply avoid announcing their commitment to any given block.

And do what, sit with their thumbs up their asses in the mean time? They are, apparently, waiting on somebody more trusted than them to figure out what is going on when that more trusted person may well be the cause of the problem.

Clients, on the other hand, may not care about exchanges at all. They simply want to know if they can buy something from Apple,  McDonald's or whoever. If they STOP seeing announcements from the folks they have traded with in the past (easy to implement). Or don't see an announcement from a new merchant they want to trade with (also easy to implement). Then they should wait until the system settles. They simply periodically ping the merchants they use, asking each for their latest block announcement. Once they see consensus among their merchants, everything should be good to go.

Sounds far too complicated to me. What if the client wants to use a merchant they've never used before? Or a new client like I asked before? I don't see any manner for fork resolution other than "human intervention". You're gonna have to come up with something better than that if you want to convince people that this is a better option than a bunch of terahashes.
1657  Economy / Economics / Re: Molyneux on Deflation - Video on: October 20, 2011, 10:06:02 PM
Yes, the answer is BUY BUY BUY! $2 is an opportunity!
1658  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 20, 2011, 09:58:32 PM
most of us here who believe in Bitcoin also believe in the Austrian definition of inflation/deflation which is related to the money supply (currency plus credit), not the price.  price is a secondary phenomenon which responds to the supply.  no wonder we disagree so vehemently on the outlook for Bitcoin.

It's great that a bunch of people who have never heard of the austrian school of economics before bitcoin believe Mises's definition of inflation, but if you want to talk with people who actually have common sense, the word should mean what it means in a dictionary. When someone is obviously using the "mainstream" definition, correcting them to the Mises's definition is pedantic. Especially when his definition is targeted towards how central bank fiat currencies operate, not how a fixed-money supply like bitcoin would, assuming it had inflation.
1659  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 20, 2011, 09:42:18 PM
Explain why this is a bad thing. Why should people not be able to save money and have it benefit from the increased productivity of the economy, rather than having it sucked away by monetary inflation?

Lol in what universe does doing absolutely nothing and achieving a 300% return equate to "increased productivity"? I don't have a specific problem with deflation that is any worse than inflation, but the model of bitcoin obviously and intentionally causes unwarranted gain to those who were there first. Value does not appear out of thin air. The ability to use a digital trash token does not merit you a 300% or 3 million % return--as in the case of the earliest adopters. It is a transfer of wealth. Isn't the main complaint about inflation is how it makes our money worth less? What am I missing here that hasn't happened in bitcoin? That after enough millions in wealth are transferred that it will happen less often and will be spread across the backs of more copper-scrounging slaves in the future? Wow, what a refreshing redefinition of money. And these copper-scrounging slaves are the ones expected to keep the network running, ROFLMAO.
1660  Economy / Speculation / Re: Denial on: October 20, 2011, 09:23:55 PM
I assumed you meant acquiring USD by "staggering returns". I don't "buy" or "sell" Bitcoins so this certainly doesn't apply to me. If you mean something else, feel free to elaborate. Better yet, don't. I've had discussions with you before and we will certainly never see eye to eye. You change definitions of words to fit your agenda.

Being able to buy a loaf of bread for 1 BTC one year and 0.25 BTC the next is a staggering return. It has little to do with whether or not you convert it to USD. If there were an actual economy to speak of, this would be more evident, but you assume I mean USD because that is the mentality of bitcoin users.

I am a fan of Bitcoin because the creation and existence of the coin base is known to me and cannot be changed without a fork in the block chain.

Any variant of bitcoin does essentially the same thing. Again, Cluster was referring to the specific idealism of the bitcoin model. Bitcoin could have been inflationary, bitcoin could have been deflationary with a much less early-heavy scheme.

Inflation means increase in money supply.

Deflation means decrease in money supply.

Both of these definitions are undeniably wrong. Inflation refers to an increase in prices over time; deflation refers to a decrease in prices over time. *Monetary* inflation refers to expanding the money supply; it does not necessarily cause *price* inflation. *Monetary* deflation generally does not exist because you can't force the removal of currency from circulation except in extreme scenarios. Nobody in their right mind would ever refer to bitcoin as being monetary deflative. Too many people confuse these terms because they equate monetary inflation with price inflation because of how fiat currencies work and how pitifully bad central banks are at doing their job, or alternatively how good they are at keeping the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. Funnily enough, bitcoin has achieved basically the same thing.

I personally feel that if the rate of creation was any different or adjusted for user base that they would be worthless. In other words, early adopters were necessary.

And you may personally feel that way because you have a lot of coins. Maybe you don't. I don't have any way of knowing and you can't prove you don't because of the nature of pseudo-anonymous wallets.

Regardless, you are going to have a lot harder time convincing new suckers that bitcoins are worthwhile when they were $35 and are now $2. And there was a large sentiment expressed that bitcoins had nowhere to go but up when they were $35. I could only laugh and get squelched for telling those people they were stupid. *I* was accused of being a paid shill for predicting what eventually happened. I'm quite sure it happened without regard to anything I said. And *I* certainly didn't have anything to gain by screaming to the world that bitcoins were going to drop like a rock. Those who claimed it would hit $100 certainly had something to gain. But were they ever accused of being paid shills? Naw...

I know you won't agree with me, and I know you can't have a conversation without personal attacks so I'll end this discussion here.

I may be abrasive, but my goal is to convince people on the fence that bitcoin is a great idea with a terrible execution. I know there is no hope for convincing early adopters who believe that transferring wealth from newcomers to them is just how it has to be. I don't care. It is not you I am trying to convince. You have an interest in seeing an ungainly return on your investment; I have an interest in making sure people don't lose their money to you. Why? I don't know, maybe I just actually have a conscience.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 » is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!