 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
Lol no....Ethereum is way faster and better equipped to handle these kinds of transactions...and it's still slow...Rootstock is going to be 60s computation speed compared to Ethereum...which is currently in the 90s for speed....maybe they'll get more modern the sooner they switch to a Proof of Stake.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been sharing what little BTC I have with family and friends. My hope is that eventually they will all begin to see the amazingness that is Bitcoin. In particular I've been targeting my African friends from university and telling them that they should use this as the medium of exchange to send things back home to their friends and family. They've been pretty interested in it because we frequently talk politics and problems specifically regarding brutal dictators and the IMF.
|
|
|
|
Is this the final fork of VTR (i mean there wont be any other forks after you finish the beta) ? So can I buy now VTR? You wont remake the coin later right?
There will be only one VTR, and in the future if there is any updates which requires hard fork, current chain of VTR will be move over. any alive pool for that coin??
VTR is now proof of stake currency, but we should be getting one multipool that pay out in VTR soon. Regards, vTorrent Hi there, I'm interested in joining the development team and offer some help in the process. But first I would like to know the rough outline of how this all works. Feel free to drop me a PM. Thank you. |
|
|
|
so in theory, one could make a torrent network whereby via a block chain, you send a file and then lose the ability to access that file? Assuming you don't copy it of course.
No, with my understanding of the word "theory". On the Bittorrent network the copy of Sylvester's Stallone film is still playable and valuable no matter how many copies are in existence. On the Bitcoin network people value only coins that are "unspent" as marked by the "the most current and heaviest blockchain". The "spent" coins continue to exist, but nobody gives them any value. You may have other meaning of the word "theory" on you mind. My question is moreso if I were to somehow make a blockchain that instead of exchanging bitcoins exchanged files. Would that mean that in that network, once that file is sent to another party, that I no longer have access to said file (assuming that I have not copied it)? |
|
|
|
|
so in theory, one could make a torrent network whereby via a block chain, you send a file and then lose the ability to access that file? Assuming you don't copy it of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I'm trying to understand the two concepts better. Can someone explain to me what is the fundamental difference between a torrent network and a block chain? What's the difference between sending a bitcoin and sending a music file in a peer to peer network? It may be a complex and rather open ended question, but I am prepared for a complex answer as well. Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
The current Bitcoin system has at least $364 million in sunk infrastructure costs and burns at least $560 million a year in power. The ONLY source of "income" to support this burden is (1) appreciation of the existing 13.8 million Bitcoins and (2) mining of 1.3 million new Bitcoins per year. Do the math - these numbers just don't add up to a stable system that's gonna work. Gulp! Isn't that cheaper than building all the banks in the world, not to mention their yearly energy consumption to do the same time that crypto does at a cheaper up-front cost? When you're done here, OP, head on over to an eBay forum and inform that it's auction model is unsustainable because eventually the world will run out of things to auction on the second-hand marketplace. Fortunately, BTC is a computer program and does not need any money at all. You are thinking of the desires of miners. Not a need of the system. It worked perfectly fine when BTC costs $0.06. I am truly interested to see whether Gavin's prediction of falling rates for ASIC miners comes to fruition. |
|
|
|
|
That's pretty damn cool. Not gonna lie. Anyways, thanks for the response guys. Appreciate the education.
|
|
|
|
It is my understanding that bitcoin wallets are created through a hash table with 64 bits of alphanumeric characters.
Your understanding is incorrect. There is no hashtable involved anywhere, and Bitcoin addresses have 160 bits of data. thank you for the correction. |
|
|
|
|
It is my understanding that bitcoin wallets are created through a hash table with 64 bits of alphanumeric characters. What happens when all wallets are completely used up? What happens then? Just a curiosity question.
|
|
|
|
BTC will eventually be replaced I think, because deflation can be bad or good, and usually it is good when it is driven by innovation, not supply limits
And how the hell isn't bitcoin and everything related to it not innovation lol. it's a bit clunky in its development. Very very conservative in that department if you ask me. Not enough new features compared to what others are doing. Not exactly adapting with the changing crypto environment. |
|
|
|
I kind of liked it... some of the things that could have been improved is : 1. The way people can buy BTC - The stock exchange guy scene did not do it for me... A Bitcoin ATM would have been better. Overall a positive experience.  This is a great point. The "floor of the exchange" approach was good for TV but it did make it seem difficult to buy bitcoin. Are there any ATMs in the US yet? I thought they were only in Canada (among North American countries). ATMs exist in the US. Though they are few and far between where I'm at. Have to go all the way to the city to get to one. |
|
|
|
|
I actually fairly enjoyed that. Very well presented. Good for mainstream audience to see this wonderful technology.
|
|
|
|
1. Bitcoin mining is a service not a lottery. Miners work for a living. Actually, the "service" that miners "do" is legally considered to be the "consideration" part of the lottery known as Bitcoin. Bottom line, it is working and continues to grow. Something that has consumed hundreds of millions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of useless computers only to lose 75% of its value in the past 15 months is not "working" or "growing". It's a burst bubble. If you don't have to pay to get in then it's not a lottery. I suppose you could call it a contest, but there is nothing wagered like a lottery. I doubt any court would find otherwise. As far as the "burst bubble", I think this is a common confusion about bitcoin. People often seem to think in terms of stocks and investments when thinking about bitcoin. But it is nothing like that. I have made some good money in bond markets and trading stocks. Each trade is really a bet on the business behind the stock offering. Those companies need my money to launch a plan to make more money. That's my return. If they fail to raise enough the price could drop and the company could become insolvent and POP! the bubble bursts and the stock is worthless. Bitcoin is not a business, there are no mouths to feed, bitcoin does not need money to work. It worked just fine when the price was $0.06, it worked fine when the price was $1000. There is no minimal threshold that is required to keep bitcoin from becoming insolvent. In short, price is not an indicator of growth. Price is an indicator of supply and demand, adoption shows growth. There are more businesses now than ever accepting bitcoin and the list grows every day. I'm shocked by how quickly it's all happening. Two years ago I could buy alpaca socks and used computer parts with bitcoin. Now I buy whatever I want and no longer use cards on the internet. ~Cheers Really? Where do you live that you can pay rent or your mortage in Bitcoin? As for the topic at hand. I think that yes, he does have some credit to his argument. However, you could make the claim that Bitcoin DOES operate like stock in a company (that seems to be how many people use it in trade), but that the company is a decentralized network. Thus the concept of the DAC. And as we all know, the stock market in and of itself is very much like a gaming set up. What draws the difference between the two? |
|
|
|
|
I have messaged you with interest to work on development and to work with ideas. Please send a return message. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that there will be more decentralization? Maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree on the POW and lack of scalability, I do think that two projects are working on some great solutions that can very easily be integrated into the Bitcoin source code if the miners will let them. They are DPOS from Bitshares, and the scalability solutions using patricia trees that is being used with Ethereum. These two projects are game changers when it comes to cryptocurrency and if Gavin doesn't implement anything they put in when it is shown that these methods work, I think Bitcoin will go the way of Napster and die (I don't understand why everything has to go through bitcoin...if the infrastructure works for bitcoin, chances are it'll work for other cryptocurrencies).
|
|
|
|
Really looks like that bitcoin failed as an experiment
I think that it is still working as the technical experiment that it was meant to be: a test of whether the PoW/reward/majority protocol would indeed motivate miners to mine, and prevent sabotage of a decentralized ledger. Bitcoin was not meant to be a replacement or alternative to credit cards, a sound investment, a way to evade law enforcement, to weaken governments, to turn losers into millionaires, etc.. Others appropriated it and have been trying to redefine it as some or all of these things. The technical experiment has worked for five years in spite of (not because of) its massive "adoption" by half a million people for those purposes. From the purely technical point of view, the only problem that has surfaced in these 6 years is the centralization of mining, due to use of specialized chips and economies of scale. That development was not expected, and may be technically its failure. Bitcoin may be failing only for some of the things it was never meant to be used for.  Not at all. Even if bitcoin dies (I highly doubt it is anytime soon. There's so much venture capital being pumped into this to expand infrastructure and I read more and more about different companies accepting it.) The price is going to bottom out soon. It's going to stabilize roughly around this range. Maybe go up higher in value as more mainstream acceptance becomes apparent. At the worst what the experiment shows is that a deflationary currency is not sustainable. At best it shows that a deflationary currency is sustainable and shrouds the world in blockchain technology. That is where bitcoin will make the biggest difference. The blockchain. Bitcoin may die. But the altcoins are going to carry on. For sure. |
|
|
|
So I came across this thread while googling about Mesh Networks: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666425.0For those who don't know what a Mesh Network is, here is a youtube video to get you up to speed on what the idea is and why it's important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tEkyLOh-tY An interesting idea I had while reading this is not so much a means of global reach so much as talking about the problem of SuperNodes that would allow for the necessary efficient transcontinental travel in a mesh network. This could be possibly achieved by creating a new ISP by a Mesh Network foundation that would take on the sunk costs of establishing infrastructure for the project (most likely in a city as that is the area where ISPs actually can maintain some semblance of competition), that would make a superNode that takes information from any anonymous node that had theoretically been passed by some user deep off in the mesh network. The ISP then recoups its costs by charging larger fees on a packet of data to transmit across a continent/large area, or it could take the google model and divvy it out for free on the basis that the user reciprocates some data about themselves in exchange for the service. Thinking about this with the mindset of this particular project in mind that utilizes a cryptocurrency like protocol to incentivize the relaying of information across the network http://www.openlibernet.org/The pros of this as I see it are that users would see lower costs due to less need to travel to a large node as the main route and correct me if I'm wrong but the ISP would also therefore be easier to establish and maintain. Not sure if there would be increases in speed or efficiency of data packet travel. The cons as I see it are that we have to use a ISP still. However, this is mitigated by the option to do it in an encrypted fashion and still potentially get it for free. Again, this is meant mainly to take on the concept of supernodes in a practical way and to discuss the potential flaws and benefits of going about this route. Discuss. |
|
|
|
|
