Bitcoin Forum
November 16, 2018, 04:30:18 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 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 ... 93 »
301  Economy / Economics / Re: Some dilemma regarding investments and social welfare in an all bitcoin economy on: May 26, 2013, 07:34:05 PM
How are there interest rates in a world where money is finite?

There could be, they just won't be positive rates. Negative and zero rates have been discussed on this board previously. Some believe that this can work, but they tend to back this only with beliefs rather than any kind of economic propensity. Alternatively, lending money in a bitcoin-like system will have to be for extremely short durations. Kind of the opposite of what deflation purportedly achieves ("sane economic growth")--finding the quickest, most economic and environmentally disastrous way to profit regardless of the consequences.

Otherwise, there is simply no point in investing with bitcoins in the tragedy of the commons situation that it will inevitably encounter. You really aren't going to get many of the established here to agree that this will be the case, because then they are agreeing that bitcoin will ultimately fail. So they will either divert or ignore the issue. I've watched this happen for 2 years now, and I don't expect the mentality to change.

In my signature is a link for a proposed design that fixes this plus a multitude of other problems with bitcoin. You may be interested in it.
302  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: MC2 ("Netcoin"): A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system on: May 26, 2013, 07:24:27 PM
There is another problem I think, which is recursive invalidation of the blockchain if you invalidate the previous block.  It is what it sounds like; once you invalidate a block previous in a string of valid blocks, all the blocks before it become invalidated because that block confirms all of these blocks reverse sequentially.  There needs to be a way to keep the PoS transactions free from the manipulative harm of the PoW chain in some way.

I need to think about this some more, can't think of an easy solution off the top of my head.

Stop relying on PoW for any part of network security.
303  Economy / Economics / Re: Energy consumption could become an issue if bitcoin really breaks through on: May 26, 2013, 05:31:15 PM
All of these issues come down to the nuclear energy in any way. It's cheap, clean if necessary precautions are taken, and dangerous as hell. In those regions that has nuclear, electricity per kW is way cheaper, so is the mining.

Nuclear power from the proposed thorium reactors is safe and easier to deploy than uranium reactors. It has very little backing because of political motives.
304  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin on: May 26, 2013, 05:09:54 PM
I think the most important improvement we can make is that everyone can mine with existing PC without buying specialized hardware (so they can side-step AML laws and increase anonymity).

Newly created funds cannot be used as a consistent source of anonymity. This is impractical. Many people *should* have the capability to mine because it is required for decentralized control of the monetary system.

I have described in this post in another thread how this post could be extended to allow for a complete coin-mixer as part of the protocol without much overhead. It is a dangerous proposition though.
305  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin on: May 26, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
Replying to a PM here...

Quote from: ffssixtynine
If a malicious entity attacks an individual shareholder, it's far too easy for them to cost that sh a lot of money. This is going to happen, and that is too problematic for me to consider being an sh.

Unless the malicious entity has direct control over the computer in question, they can't cause a SH to lose their share. If they can manage to surround a SH, it is possible to prevent the SH from sending his TB and cause him to receive a soft strike. But with the network having an encrypted handshake process and "public access nodes" that require a deposit, finding a SH will be difficult, and surrounding him even more so. Paranoid SHs might just send their TBs to Shadow Peers only for the first few seconds, then send it to CNPs for wide distribution. This provides quite a bit of unlinkability if most SHs do this.

As far as compromised computers, there may be some software defenses, but I am not sure at this point. However, if people can manage not to freak out about having a significant bounty system, one of the bounties would surely be for developing a piece of USB hardware that could perform the SH duties and therefore be unhackable within reason. It would be fairly easy to adapt said hardware to also being the decrits "debit card". Since an account ledger is used in lieu of a transaction ledger, hardware devices can be much simpler than those required for bitcoin. Tx out information does not need to be kept, only private key information.

I also wondered about the 10s block time due to the nature of cloud distribution but I assume that out of order blocks are ok and some hard limit on how late it can be and how does that system work. Also the cb determines subsequent tb order, but how do we go from the last tb in a block to allowing time for late cb signings to creating the new cb to creating the new tb order. Block 2 tb order needs block 1 to be complete but they will overlap. So block 1 actually has to determine block 3's order, essentially using a double buffer mechanism. In which case, the shareholder system needs to allow for double buffering too because the sh may have dropped out in block 2, but block 3 is already being processed before we know that the sh has dropped out. I guess all it means is that sh's tbs get missed but as the sh has left then they don't lose their shareholding at the next cb

I addressed how this will work here (towards the end of the post), though the idea about using the signature aggregate of all the SHs to determine the next order is no longer the design case since most sig algorithms are not deterministic. But it explains how the "double buffering" will work on a network level. As far as individual TBs being out of order and whatnot, the design of this is sort of sprinkled throughout the thread and has changed some during that time too. It's something I don't think I'll have a concrete idea for until I run some unit tests with a simulated network, as well as some math done on what the probabilities are of evil SHs having enough control to cause damage to honest SHs. I'm thinking 10 TBs must pass before a missing TB can "replace" later txes, and maybe 100 or more must pass before a SH will receive a soft strike for missing his TB. This would make it very difficult for internet lag or evil SHs to cause problems for honest SHs.

I have a comment on system complexity too. People are saying it's complex because it is multi layered, and there is economic theory involved at various levels. That is tricky to take in and leads to more edge cases than in a simpler system. Having more edge cases is usually, but not always, a sign that a system is flawed. That's why some people have an intuitive problem with it.

So even if it is still a valid design, it's hard for you to convince anyone to make it (hopefully you have tho) and hard to convince people to partake in it. There is a very important human psychology side to these things that gets forgotten about when engineering systems.

I am hoping that the psychology of "free money for anyone who accepts it" will be a powerful motivator. Once many smart people have agreed that the security seems "secure enough", not everyone needs to understand it. Just like very few people really understand bitcoin's security, but they still use it. Same goes for the network dynamics in part 2. The monetary system, at its most basic level, is fairly easy to understand.

And while there may be edge-cases, none of them are critical failures such as the 51% attack. And the network has the ability to coordinate changes via section 4. I don't know how it will work out in reality, but I envision an adaptable system that can only get better over time. I don't want to give up just because it's hard, and there might be problems. I want to try something that has the chance of being fricken amazing, and if it has a few hiccups along the way, it will be fixed. It's not worth the time spent being afraid.

I have the same beef with bitcoin wallets btw and have designed a much better way to handle private keys , addresses and other aspects that account for how 'my dad' works. It should lead to higher adoption (at least for people confused by bitcoin itself), far less lost coins, and far less stolen coins, even on compromised machines. IMHO any lost coins are the fault of the system and not the user unless they have been spectacularly stupid. Bitcoiners are techies so blame the user. This is fundamentally wrong and a serious flaw. Bitcoin banks will solve some of it (and I love the pooling/voting suggestions by the OT guy to keep money safe) but wallets need to be safe too.

Feel free to share. Tongue I intend to have a design from the get-go for deterministic private keys so that money could never be lost due to a hard drive crash or an accidentally deleted file. This doesn't protect compromised computers, but that is a very difficult problem. (Although having a hardware dongle vastly reduces this attack vector, and can be simple to use.) I very much appreciate the fact that cryptocurrency needs to be easier for the end-user. And in some of the other pieces of software I've developed, I have created some insane pieces of code that existed purely to make the user interface just a little bit easier for a wider array of people. I love software that is simple and intuitive--and I have lots of ideas here. But the decrits engine is a much higher priority discussion. There is no point in making it easier to use if it doesn't exist.

Going back to decrits. I don't understand the account system properly but presumably the account ledger is a list of changes in account levels as opposed to transactions? A transaction is processed and the outputs are any changed accounts.

Yes, I should have re-touched on this in the OP, but the account system is one of the first couple of ideas I came up with 2 years ago on a blank sheet of paper. Even though it is a critical part of making this work, it's something I completely take for granted because I spent a lot of time thinking through it in the past. Basically, there is an accepted ledger that maintains a balance for each account, then current activity is stored on a second ledger that proposes changes to that each account's balance using references to transactions in the transaction block chain. I guess there is sort of a third ledger that are changes to be committed, because they won't all be committed at once but over time to spread the load on the databases. Anyways... this post goes over some of the data benefits of an account ledger.

There is no such thing as interest but there is a lottery with rewards. Would this not be better as interest distributed to every account, or every account used over past consensus block/year if you wanted to prioritise those using the money rather than hoarding it - other currencies will be more commodity based so a reward for use is better. I can see the issue being people creating circular transactions to indicate use, but I wanted to bring up the topic of interest in theory as you'll have had reasons for choosing a lottery approach. I just think interest works better economically and intuitively. If you used money to perform work, you should be rewarded for it. If you didn't use your money then you don't get rewarded. This is the opposite to what banks (supposedly) do, whereby the use your money to perform work and pay you for letting them do that with your money.

Though brenzi has been challenging the deeper aspects of the currency distribution scheme, you are the first to question the most basic, human part of it. There are two reasons why I kind of dropped the "interest" mechanism, because I did actually have this as the noted design for a long time.

1) A *lot* of accounts have to be updated at one time. This could be detrimental to the operation of the network if everyone has to stall for a long period figuring out where money needs to go and applying it to the balance. If you don't update them all at once based on the same set of data, then you are required to keep data longer to keep that state of the network available to continue to award the proper interest over time. It would also be more complex to determine that state as time goes on because you have to walk backwards through history to find it.
2) It won't be a very meaningful amount of money. Sure, interest is great, but if all you're getting is a couple of decents, how does that really incentivize using or accepting the currency?

However, the decision about point 1 was made with a less-developed system in mind--I think it could be accomplished with the current level of design. I never really came up with an "interest for money used" system in the way you describe. It has interesting implications. However, I think it has the problem of point 2. I like the lottery idea because it keeps the "small guy" on a more level playing field with the bigger guys. I think this will be important for the propensity to use decrits in less developed countries. It also means that just an every day person might have a greater propensity to use it. Or an every day business.

No huge investment in the currency is required to start seeing dividends. I think this will foster its adoption by a multitude of people and will help debase the current monetary infrastructure. Because let's face it, it needs to be debased. Replacing it with a whole new infrastructure of powerful people is not an acceptable alternative.

You really need to diagram this in both simple and complex form. You can't relay your message without doing visual representations of all levels, no exceptions.

After some delays, I think the wiki software being hosted by Ukigo is almost ready. But it is going to be quite awhile before it will have all of the information at all levels. Getting a lot of this discussion out of my notes and into something a little more formal has been very helpful though.
306  Economy / Economics / Re: Energy consumption could become an issue if bitcoin really breaks through on: May 25, 2013, 07:12:02 PM
Well, since you brought it up: Report: 97% of scientists believe global warming is real.  Don't listen to us, listen to the experts.  

Even if what you said was true, there is still a limited amount of resources on the planet, and the point that the bitcoin infrastructure is wasteful in resource terms alone is entirely valid.

I'm pretty sure Ukigo's post was dripping with sarcasm (more humans == more slaves kinda gives it away). But it can be hard to detect over the internet sometimes. Tongue
307  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [white paper] Purely P2P Crypto-Currency With Finite Mini-Blockchain on: May 25, 2013, 06:40:44 PM
Blind signature schemes have existed prior to the advent of the internet, and they solve the problem. And in my solution's case (though it has some minor caveats), there is no danger of ever losing your money or having to reveal where you intended to send money if the mixer does something bad. Yours requires that the operator has collateral to cover all transactions, where mine does not. There is also the problem that if not enough transactions are being processed through a mixing account but it is forced to release your transaction, there may be few transactions inbetween that provide reduced linkability. And if the mixer does not release the transaction, your solution completely deanonymizes the transaction if they want to get their money. These are all very significant caveats. And the result is no better than sending your coins to a gambling site or whatever and cashing them out to another account. You could argue the gambling site is more likely to keep records, but coin mixer accounts as part of the protocol is ripe for the honeypotting.
308  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [white paper] Purely P2P Crypto-Currency With Finite Mini-Blockchain on: May 25, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
re: coin laundry, the system I described here could be safely used for any amount of money. If the SH attempts to be devious, all money will simply be returned and he will lose his deposit. And no correlation can be made between the from and the to accounts (other than it is one of the initiators, so 1/x). It seems as if you have given the laundry this information, so you have not protected anyone from the laundry keeping records. This is the same privacy offered by sending your coins to any site that will keep a balance for you and then cash out at a later time.

However, I did not bring up that it could be used for any amount of money in that thread. I am on the fence about including an all-you-can-use coin mixer as part of the protocol. But it can be very versatile. As part of the transaction, you have the amount required and the number of initiators you require. Say you want to clean 50 coins, and you want 99 other people to clean 50 coins with you, then you initiate it and wait. If you are paranoid that someone will send 99 txes to oust you, you only need to send a tx that fits the criteria of another group and join that one's pool.
309  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Project Meshnet: Hardware for cjdns to enable new, censorship free Internet on: May 24, 2013, 03:40:12 AM
Alternatively, for data such as bitcoin's block chain where many people along the chain may actually want the data, is it possible to send it unencrypted, or make it easy to send unencrypted data so that all nodes wanting a copy of a distributed shared file do not have to transfer, without knowing, the information they are looking for without taking advantage of it?

I hope a clash of meshnet ideas does not stall its progress. It is something that must be accomplished for the sake of a free society.
310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Project Meshnet: Hardware for cjdns to enable new, censorship free Internet on: May 24, 2013, 03:30:29 AM
I really, really like the idea of meshnets and have done a little reading, but I do not know the specifics. Is it possible for meshnet technology to discover the most advantageous way to get data from one point to another without saturating numerous unneeded hops? I really hope it can take off, but I also really hope that it isn't slow as molasses.
311  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin on: May 24, 2013, 12:04:21 AM
I guess by off-network txes you mean things like 'gox redeemable codes?

I was thinking more along the lines of a banking system layered on top of the currency. Or if people figure out how to make secure transactions with a physical medium.

What happens if there's an intermediate run on DCR? If your money supply algo is not 99% perfect, there might be deflationary times and a bubble might rise. Transaction volume goes up for a limited amount of time. Your all-time GDP goes up. The bubble bursts and transaction volume is back on a fraction. So in addition to the bursting bubble you're making it worse by inflating money supply.

By "an intermediate run" do you mean people start buying in heavily? Transaction volume can't rise too sharply with the same amount of coins. The very deflation caused will cause transactions to be for smaller amounts. Don't forget that people will be well aware of the properties of the system, and buying when coins are priced too high is not a good idea unless the alternatives are very poor, in which case those alternatives are unlikely to fix themselves any time soon, and the result will likely be a permanent increase in the decrits economy.

Any bubble that occurs knowing the properties of the system would be real demand, not speculative demand. There isn't much incentive to hoard to increase the price when minters can just start creating money. Although there is definitely some incentive to cause initial hoarding/speculation when the mint block awards 5-10x during the bootstrap, but I think this is a necessary part of the bootstrap process.

If real demand outpaces the ability of the decrits network to create it, then there will be periods of deflation. But at the same time, money is being given freely away. The key is to make sure that the process of absorbing the world's economy does not create monolithic empires or cause economic catastrophes. Even if coin production overshoots, the vast majority of that money was given away freely and at random. What does it matter if bread that cost 1.00 yesterday costs 1.02 today if you got a free decrit for buying it? Maybe a bread maker who didn't sell bread for decrits yesterday will start today because he knows that decrits will probably go slightly up in value soon because no more can be profitably created for some time.

It is impossible to create a totally stable system that can rapidly adapt to whatever the world economy wants to throw at it. There are billions of variables to account for. There are, however, two major goals we can try to achieve:

1) Make the process of switching the world over to a new currency as painless as possible. It will not be completely pain-free.
2) Make the system perform as stably as possible when whatever portion of the world that adopts it is going to adopt it (at least for now).

That is the viewpoint from which I see the design of the system.

alright, this might calm things. But it also slows adaption to changing circumstances.

Yes, this is a caveat of the system. Quick adaptation is much more likely to result in mistakes. Slow adaptation with the knowledge that it will adapt could create quite a lot of interest. Temporary deflation is just what the doctor ordered for this scenario, especially as all people using the system will be rewarded, not just those that "got in early" or are direct beneficiaries of corrupted governments. Free decrits are being given away and the guy down the street is taking decrits and getting free coins, and you're sitting there with a devaluing fiat currency? I think this could be a powerful motivator. There is never a bad time to start taking decrits.

Price high? Free coins are being given away. Price low? You're getting decrits for less than their (mostly) verifiable cost to produce.

I need some naming guidance. AcctFreeMoney?

What is GetConsecutiveMBlocks()?

I have mostly focused on the transaction side of the free money, but I have always proposed giving free money away to accounts too, 5x to transactions, 5x to accounts. This is sort of a crutch to prevent EvilCorp from inflating away savings by minting at big losses. I guess it's not really a crutch, it's just a massive disincentive to manipulating the supply. And unless the network has transacted many multiples of the total money supply in the last 30 CDs, the transaction money will still be much more significant in terms of % of volume, so hoarding will not be as relevant as participating in the economy.

GetConsecutiveMBlocks would be a function that determines how many mint blocks have been created "in a row" to determine the additional multipliers above 5x. "In a row" might mean that if MB 2 starts within 10 CDs of MB 1, it is considered a consecutive block. Maybe 30 CDs. It requires a lot of discussion. I do believe that the multiplier should be capped, but at what point is a big decision because it has big implications on how the currency can react to something like doubling within a year, or ultimately taking over as the world's currency. But if tx volume keeps increasing, the MB awards will get bigger without the multipliers having to be bigger because NGDP is increasing.

I don't think it is a good idea to bet on constant growth.

I have told you that the system does not rely on it. When minting is unprofitable, minting will stop. The currency does not lose value or utility because new value is not entering the system. It might lose some speculative fervor, but you must remember that it will be competing with currencies that have terrible foundations, and that includes bitcoin. Cycles will happen in those currencies, and value will be drawn to the decrits system. Whereas bitcoin kicks out a large portion of its adopters after they lose the house, decrits will make sure they never want to leave or feel as if they have been defrauded, even if the value does dip (they made coins along the way).

The principle of the system is a sound, fair way to both upset the current monetary infrastructure and empower the people. There is no need for a multitude of clones to draw back the power of the heavily manipulated bitcoin. Everyone who creates, sends, accepts, and stores decrits benefits from the system during expansion. There is no one group that benefits vastly more than the others. I think it is going to be hard to get people to run away from that system once they're in and they get it. And if the wealthy start manipulating the supply way down the road, the people are always free to create more to diminish that power that is being misused or abused, and no government will be able to intervene. In the case of bitcoin, people would create a clone. In the case of decrits, they will just make more money. You will not stop the people, you can only make it more difficult or more easy for them. Decrits chooses to make it more easy.

You have more than one of these "one-way" assumptions in your design. GDP(MAX_CONSENSUS_YEAR) is only one of them. Monotonically increasing money supply is another.

I'm not sure what assumption you're under of how the system works. What is it do you think would be a better way? Max_consensus_year does not have to keep increasing, it just won't go down. Why would it need to go down? That would imply that money needs to be created in a system with a declining transaction volume, on or off chain. Off chain transactions will still have an effect on the valuation of the currency, so if tx volume is declining due to that, new money will still be in sufficient demand to be created by the system.

I'm just not sure I see what problem you have with a monotonically increasing money supply. The price does not have to be rock hard ridiculously stable at one point. Destroying currency only reduces the impact of price stickiness. But remember, if the currency is undervalued, it is an opportunity for new people to accept it. And undervalued is not some vague notion as it is with bitcoin, it is something that people will have a lot of real information on.

As soon as the volatility caused by the crisis calms down, so does transaction volume.

I think you might be overly concerned with the very early stages of the network. The solution is to have an economic bootstrap design that makes sense to protect the network from ridiculous swings early on. One of the easiest ways to do that is to ramp up some variables (like max_gdp) ahead of their time. Paypal is a good starting point to think about how to design the economic bootstrap so that the currency can grow into itself a bit. I just haven't gone much into this side because I'm trying to make the bigger picture clearer first before delving into the minutiae.
312  Economy / Economics / Re: Fixed exchange rate cryptcurrency / OT / Ripple on: May 23, 2013, 07:21:10 AM
Barters are bought from a central pool

You have answered your own question. Even if you could find a way to do this in a trust-free way that was unable to be controlled by the governments, you still have the problem with whatever crony capitalistic bs happens with the fiat currency will affect the barter currency.

I think I have proposed a cryptocurrency that is the best of all worlds--decentralized, relatively stable, and efficient. See my signature if you would like to know more or discuss it.
313  Economy / Economics / Re: Some dilemma regarding investments and social welfare in an all bitcoin economy on: May 23, 2013, 06:15:29 AM
This is the fatal flaw in the model. In any real economy, not all participants have access to the same information. People with access to good information can profit at the expense of those who don't, by buying undervalued investments and selling overvalued ones.

The point, my dear Watson, is that either way you are more profitable by doing nothing.
314  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: scrypt is "memory intensive" therefore no ASICs, but how? on: May 23, 2013, 05:23:52 AM
I haven't done much research on scrypt so I can't help you there. But neither have many other people around these parts. Scrypt being used as it is for LTC and clones is something new, and there is not much theory behind it--it is still pretty unexplored territory.
315  Economy / Economics / Re: Some dilemma regarding investments and social welfare in an all bitcoin economy on: May 23, 2013, 05:16:08 AM
9. Knowing that, and playing the game from 1 to 8, firms hold onto their money instead of investing.

This won't happen because if it does, bitcoin doesn't work. So we must distract and conflate away the issue such as foxpup has attempted to do, and throw in homerisms about how bitcoin is undervalued to encourage people to ignore the irrationality of the system.
316  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: scrypt is "memory intensive" therefore no ASICs, but how? on: May 23, 2013, 05:07:10 AM
These are very difficult questions to answer. Scrypt is not just a "simple" algorithm that is the same everywhere like SHA-256. It has values that can be changed, and those values can have significant effects on the viability of something like an ASIC. It is also hard to predict how this viability might change over time.

For example, LTC used figures that mistakenly were thought to be GPU-resistant, but they were not. The same could happen regarding ASICs without a deep amount of research. And it could still be wrong.
317  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is Deflationary, and That's OK on: May 22, 2013, 06:04:31 AM
"Making the rounds lately"? This is an "argument" that has existed essentially since the dawn of bitcoin's economic discussion. I don't actually think anyone ever really argued it though, I think it was the Austrian school bitcoin propaganda defense to a general argument that already existed for the benefits of fiat over harder money (whether or not it is true), not bitcoins per se.

However, common sense would suggest a deflationary spiral is quite likely to never occur in bitcoin unless bitcoins are used up and down the line of production and salaries are commonly paid in bitcoin. Until then, fiat must implicitly exist alongside bitcoin. So, should a "spiral" start occurring at any point before ubiquity, people will simply switch back to fiat and stop the spiral. This is bitcoin's ultimate failing as a replacement for fiat.

"First of all, the present value of a perpetually appreciating asset is not infinity." - This is not related to the argument of a deflationary spiral.

"Second, there is a liquid market for Bitcoins." - This is under the assumption that bitcoin is not ubiquitous, and therefore has not replaced fiat and means that there is an option for people to use besides bitcoin to stop the spiral. "Economic problems in my bitcoin? Ok I'll use fiat again." It's not a particularly eloquent argument when you concede that if people prefer to use something else it will be ok.

"Third, the marginal utility of money is diminishing." - And this is essentially the Austrian argument, which is in some respects, defeated by history. The marginal utility of money may diminish, but that does not mean that money suddenly appears where it needs to be to prevent economic recession. Yes, the great depression is likely the result of some people controlling vast amounts of a limited supply of money and making mistakes. There is nothing that precludes such a thing from happening in bitcoin just because those people controlling the money supply are no longer necessarily influenced or directly controlled by governments.
318  Economy / Economics / Re: Energy consumption could become an issue if bitcoin really breaks through on: May 21, 2013, 10:08:04 PM
I'm also not really sure I buy your point about bitcoin being unable to supply all the services you listed.  Can it supply customer services?  Probably not very well.  But funds / asset management, and loans?  I don't see why not.  I don't think bitcoin is mature enough to do it yet, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.  The hardest part would be loans and that may very well have to be pegged to some fiat currency to be possible, so I could be wrong about it being possible.  Easy?  No, it'd be quite tricky to do based on the very nature of bitcoin.  But probably not impossible.

He is saying that bitcoin does not replace those services. e.g. they will still use the energy that they do now, even if they are operating with bitcoin. So it is not fair to use the lights that a bank uses to operate as part of the energy cost of fiat because it is related to the energy cost of money in general.
319  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is known on: May 21, 2013, 06:45:43 AM
I was only turning a poor argument on its head, not trying to advocate that this guy is Satoshi--which I think is a pretty silly notion for plenty of reasons without your anecdote. "OMG REALLY SMRT GUI MUST B SATOSHI!" Simply having been in the presence of Shinichi does not make you an authority on him. Just saying. Your newer post is much more relevant.
320  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is known on: May 21, 2013, 05:31:03 AM
Ok people, just ignore the guy who actually met the person you're speculating about. I'm out. This thread's a blackhole 

I am guessing the real Satoshi has met other people in real life. I am guessing the vast majority of those people do not know he is Satoshi.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 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 ... 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!