Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2018, 05:22:57 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  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 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ... 93 »
581  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's Fortune lower bound is 100M USD on: April 14, 2013, 05:02:24 PM
I'm with you that the OP is off on his assessment... but in what way was a P3 "contemporary" to any period of Bitcoin's history?  I have a stock 3.2 GHz P4 purchased from Dell in 2005.  Prescott core, so a "later" model P4.  It can do > 1000KH/s, and it was already obsolete by the time Bitcoin came around four years later.  Hell, the Core 2 Quad Q9550 came out in Q1 of 2008, and it easily gets well over 10 MH/s.  I'll grant you that the old client was poorly optimized, etc...  But P3's were long obsolete even by 2009 standards, so it's rather misleading to claim those results as "contemporary".

Sergio's post at the end of page 3 hit the nail on the head. Gmax and D&T have a massive horse in this race and are in no way objective about this. He (gmaxwell) is using the same argument he used with me some 2 years ago in IRC. "ohh but the but the processors were so slow in 2009 there's no way it was just satoshi" even though the facts pretty much fly in the face of this. It's not like that crypto mailing list is very active. The bitcoin release had what, 15-20 replies from about 5 different people? Difficulty of 1 is 7MH/s and the average power between blocks 1-32k was less than 7MH/s because the avg. block time was 13 minutes or so. The block time is fairly consistent from the beginning of that period to the end, indicating that about the same number of people who mined bitcoin from the start were the same group mining until a few more started coming on in around blocks 32-36k.

Arguing that satoshi had a lower bound hashrate of 14kh/s in 2009 based on the first two or three blocks? Incredibly naive for someone who has a deep understanding of bitcoin. I'd argue the intent of that post is entirely to deceive.
582  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's Fortune lower bound is 100M USD on: April 14, 2013, 07:30:50 AM
I believe that Satoshi foresaw this very issue, and so avoided mining at all until well after the public announcement (if ever). Blocks 1-100+ were, I suspect, not mined by Satoshi.

el oh el
583  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is there a way to encrypt a message with one key and decrypt it with another key on: April 09, 2013, 08:05:35 AM
Not really the whole point, especially considering it's not the part that bitcoin uses-- non-repudiation
584  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why use blocks at all? on: April 07, 2013, 11:59:05 PM
Does not sound secure to me. For a known cost you can cause a failure of trust.  If the deposit is very high then you turn mining into a thing with a high barrier of entry for the already rich only. If the deposit is low then you can cause trust issues for a low price.

Then perhaps you should read before making judgment? Just a thought. Mining and tx security are separate. If you do something bad in regards to tx security, you lose your deposit. No trust is required, proof is by digital signature.
585  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why use blocks at all? on: April 07, 2013, 02:54:15 PM
It is quite easy to imagine where miners assemble transactions into blocks and collectively build a shared block chain but the protocol doesn't require proof-of-work.

I've already described in detail a system that does not require proof of work at all for network security in my signature. Instead of it being based on a weak PKI infrastructure, those who wish to create blocks put a large chunk of money on the line as collateral that they will not create more than one block or do anything else nefarious or they will lose their deposit. In return, the tx fees are split among those who perform the network security. It is also based around confirming transactions every 10 seconds rather than minutes.
586  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Little game. on: March 31, 2013, 08:02:29 AM
this'll be pretty hard to do unless you help.. like say does v2 mean "version two"?
587  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: WHY BTC is NOT a Ponzi scheme on: March 31, 2013, 06:29:49 AM
methinks the lady doth protest too much
588  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What incentive is there for individuals/organisations to create alt currencies? on: March 23, 2013, 09:54:03 PM
What would people think about a new coin where the creator receives a small percentage of all mined coins for his efforts? e.g 5%.

It's called SolidCoin and/or Microcash. Current number of people using it: probably about 3.
589  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Breaking News: Litecoin hits 0.075 USD / LTC for first time! on: March 06, 2013, 05:37:57 AM
I'm not sure how I could've written a more sarcastic post considering it had already happened...  Tongue
590  Economy / Economics / Re: The implications of the United States' "unsustainable debt trajectory" on: February 26, 2013, 06:31:44 AM
The Federal Reserve is setup much like a public utility run by private interests. It was designed that way deliberately.

Yes, it was, because it was in the opinion of some of the founding fathers that it should be illegal for the federal government to issue credit-based money. That is why the three post-constitution central banks of the United States were all set up as "private banks". The federal government has the right to coin money, but the right to issue credit money was actually intentionally scrapped from the constitution. This information is historically available.

Quote
well outside of the original scope of American government.

Hardly. It was within a couple of years of the constitution's ratification that the first bank was born.

Quote
Money is primarily created "in banks". Banks issue our money.

Credit money is created in banks. Base money is created by the federal reserve. Without an increase in base money, credit money cannot expand, therefore the federal reserve has ultimate control over how much the money supply can expand--ergo it ultimately is in charge of issuing money. Since congress is in charge of determining whether or not the federal reserve is performing its capacity at an acceptable level and has the ability to dissolve it in favor of a new system, congress is ultimately in charge of the monetary system.

Quote
IOW, neither America nor its currency is sovereign. Both are beholden to private interests first.
Bitcoin: it came along just in time.

In other words, politicians are corrupt, yada yada yada here's a currency that is primarily issued by the wealthy, join up, we're less corrupt I promise Roll Eyes
591  Economy / Economics / Re: The implications of the United States' "unsustainable debt trajectory" on: February 26, 2013, 04:59:18 AM
I think you mean odolvlobo has the post that most closely agrees with the agenda you want to promote in this thread--that being stupid shit like risk of US default. The US is a sovereign nation with a sovereign currency and cannot default unless it fricken damn well wants to. Otherwise there is absolutely no chance. The crap about the debt ceiling is just the latest political toy that you obviously let the media spoon-feed to you, and with relish, without critically thinking about any of it. Stop being the exact reason why we have such a shitty system in the first place.
592  Economy / Economics / Re: The implications of the United States' "unsustainable debt trajectory" on: February 25, 2013, 08:13:54 AM
Abolishing the fed would not be a default. Read more on how the fed interacts with the treasury--the government can not default to the fed. The debt owned by the fed is just a matter of account, it is of no actual consequence. This information tends to get lost in the sensationalization of the federal reserve system.
593  Economy / Economics / Re: The implications of the United States' "unsustainable debt trajectory" on: February 25, 2013, 06:20:45 AM
you really need to read more on the topic. if anything the bank controls the govt.

No, it does not. That is a laughable presumption; congress can abolish the fed whenever it so chooses.
594  Economy / Economics / Re: The implications of the United States' "unsustainable debt trajectory" on: February 25, 2013, 03:30:09 AM
The Fed is not a govt bank or controlled by the govt.

Please Roll Eyes It does exactly what the federal government needs it to do--it most certainly will not allow for a default. The general policy decisions may be up to vote, but do not mistake this for being independent of the federal government. It is not and was never intended to be.
595  Economy / Economics / Re: The implications of the United States' "unsustainable debt trajectory" on: February 25, 2013, 03:10:31 AM
You have a big misunderstanding of how the US monetary system works.

Option B won't happen because the Fed isn't some independently operated private bank, it is a private bank run by the federal government. A stupid distinction from a public central bank, but a necessary one due to the constitution. Option C is what already happens on a regular basis.

Politicians do not need to do diddly squat about addressing the national debt. The more they spend the more resources of the economy are diverted towards the government's interest. Whether or not people are willing to put up with what the government thinks is the best way to shape society is a political problem, not a monetary one.

You can be sure that the government and the fed will do what it takes to keep the money system running smoothly--so this sky is falling shit is getting silly. The CNN article you linked aptly points out that all this is is a PR problem, there is no danger of anything relevant happening.

It's not a ponzi scheme, it's a monetary scheme, but thanks for reminding us about Pirate because that would have been obscure otherwise.
596  Economy / Economics / Re: Inflation and Deflation of Price and Money Supply on: February 20, 2013, 10:50:44 PM
hmmm, ok, I have some research to do now on:

 Multibit, BitcoinJ, Electrum,

...I want to put together a crackpot team of economists, freedom lovers, and programmers to do a mega awesome crypto-currency ... not that bitcoin isn't already, but this market is wide open for others and it is the wild wild west of our day ... and of world changing significance.

feel free to take a look at the link in my sig, although the ideas have evolved a decent bit since then too
597  Economy / Economics / Re: Inflation and Deflation of Price and Money Supply on: February 16, 2013, 12:47:56 AM
Money supply inflation means there is more money in the money supply than previously. Supply on its own has nothing to do with value (in a vacuum, admittedly), it is only a quantity; only when it is combined with demand can you determine a value or price.

"Keynesian economic theory proposes that changes in money supply do not directly affect prices, and that visible inflation is the result of pressures in the economy expressing themselves in prices." -Keynesian view of inflation

Carefully read what I wrote and try again. I am trying to neutrally define a term without any accompanying effect, not deny an effect happening.

From your OP on money supply deflation:
"so you have sort of a "deflationary effect" in the value, as long as more exchange occurs for BTC at a rate which is faster than that set generation rate."

You are doing the same thing as the keynesian definition but to the opposite effect.

*I* am not claiming that money supply inflation has an effect one way or the other. *I* am defining a term without judgment or predilection. Before you can determine a value or a change in value, you need to know the demand or change in demand. The terms "money supply inflation" or "money supply deflation", in the clearest sense of the words, can only mean an increase or decrease in the money supply. That's the whole point of writing "money supply" in front of the words. Unfortunately and less clearly, "money supply" can mean the total number of individual undivided units (including the money multiplier for most measurements), or it can mean those units in circulation (this one, more often than not).

Either way, it is not a measurement of value. An example of the "right" way to use these terms:

The Fed expanded the money supply by 3.6% last year. That money supply inflation is believed to have caused most of the 3.1% price inflation over the same time frame, leaving 0.5% to real growth.

See how clear and direct that statement was? That's because cause and effect are clearly portrayed, and they can also be clearly argued for or against if necessary. The sentence asks, "do you have better data to refute this claim?" not "what kind of fuzzy logic can you come up with to confuse the average joe?" like what happens when the words inflation and deflation are tossed around naked.

To top this off: there are plenty of periods that actually exist in history where you could make this statement "The fed expanded the money supply by x% last year. That money supply inflation is believed to helped encourage the x+1% growth over the same period." Maybe they're not as common, maybe it's a sign of a bubble, but the fact remains that you cannot say for certain that the same cause always has the same effect. There are WAY TOO MANY VARIABLES. In the same vein, you can't be sure the same effect has the same cause. So the cause has to be separate, without bias and analyzed on its own merit.

By separating out money supply inflation/deflation vs. price inflation/deflation, your goal should be to clearly and simply define those terms--then use them to make the statement that you want to make (and make an attempt at being unbiased--do not make guarantees), not make your statement within the definitions. It is dishonest otherwise, but perhaps just misguided.
598  Economy / Economics / Re: A saving driven economy vs A loan driven economy on: February 15, 2013, 11:59:33 PM
Government and FED are different organization, FED buy bonds from government, and government has to pay interest to FED.

Fed pays profit to treasury.

Quote
That's my understanding, if you have better source please share it

I'm sure you can figure out something worthwhile to google. When all else fails, wikipedia:

"The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[22] This was followed at the end of 2011 with a transfer of $77 billion in profits to the U.S. Treasury Department.[23]"

Quote
And you can even remove the interest element in this discussion (As I did in my model), anyway interest is almost 0 now.

But you can't remove the government spending element. When the economy goes bad, governments spend money like it's going out of style. Even if 50% goes to the top 20% and 50% goes to the bottom 80%, that bottom 80% received a much larger boost to its bottom line. Economies can't function well when the rich have too much money, but the rich seem to keep forgetting that. If the government wants to stay in power, it won't forget for too long.
599  Economy / Economics / Re: A saving driven economy vs A loan driven economy on: February 15, 2013, 04:55:20 AM
If more than one people claim the same piece of gold at the same time, banks go bankrupt, that is what is happening after financial crisis

And that is what I said and you denied it as if gold is any different. It's not.

Quote
The growth are all true, but not sustainable. For average people, the biggest spending (and hence the growth for society) comes from housing, then their spending will decrease, unless you could find an even bigger spending after housing, that is the problem now

No, the problem now is that banks lent recklessly. Housing does not lead to real growth, housing bubbles caused by the all too easy flow of money from the banks into housing leads to a monetary growth bubble and collapse. There's a reason why I used the word innovation several times. Stop thinking so narrowly. While the internet bubble and burst was a bubble, it still changed the world as we know it for the better. The sting was mild, and the innovative players shone through. The housing bubble was nothing but a wealth transfer.

Quote
Yes, those aspects all affect efficiency, but my model just showed that no matter how smart/efficient the banks/policy maker are, that debt based money creation will always lead to insolvency

It's an oversimplification and doesn't prove anything. You seemed to have missed the whole point I mentioned where government spending is putting "loan-only" money into society with a loan it pays interest on mostly to itself. Keeping this out of the equation makes your scenarios flawed. If the creditors get frightened, the government can always (well, almost, as long as the money is sovereign, lol europe) spend more to ease credit crises. Yes the cycle continues, but politicians are essentially paid to keep it that way by the powerful.
600  Economy / Economics / Re: A saving driven economy vs A loan driven economy on: February 15, 2013, 02:31:01 AM
I think FRB has nothing to do with this, it is more like insurance, commercial banks hedge the withdraw risk by combining lot's of savings together. They can never loan out more gold than they have, that so called "money multiplier" concept is just an accounting trick

It may be an accounting trick, but it absolutely expands the money supply when two or more people can claim the same gold. Gold just puts the brakes on government spending, it doesn't solve personal debt that you worry so much about.

Quote
And what you said is true when the economy needs to EXPAND continuously. Like human body, when an economy has become more mature, the growth will eventually slow down, the reason that an economy has to grow continuously is because all the money are debt driven

Not expand continuously, expand ever. If you ever want innovation from someone other than the rich, you need to expand the money supply when the need arises, or there will be no class movement at all. The "continuous growth" of modern economies is primarily a fiction that is encouraged due to the nature of fiat and governments. That doesn't mean that there are not periods where growth is real, and the money supply needs to respond to it.

Quote
You can hold lots of gold while have a decent but low living standard and no innovation, it's totally fine (Just like old China and India) But you can not hold lots of USD while doing the same, because someone else in the society must be heavy debt laiden because of your saving, they have to work hard to payback that debt, and those guys will try to earn your USD to pay back their debt Wink

It is a system that works reasonably well as long money flows, and flows to reasonable areas, something banks are supposed to be good judges of. That is, after all, why we are supposed to be giving them the privilege of holding all of our money and earning interest. It is the banks abusing that privilege that causes the system to shock, not the fact that debt exists. And it is the politicians that are so easily bribed into doing things that are favorable to the banks. This again is not an issue of debt, it is an issue of corruption of the monetary system. The fact that the system is corruptible is a big problem, but what do you expect when you give that sort of control to a few people?
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 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ... 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!