 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
|
Proof of Work, It says it all right there. A proof that fair work has been done. If you dig a ditch you can proof the work has been done but you will have a hard time exchanging it, Bitcoin takes care of this. If you used a shovel or a digger is irrelevant its a matter what is the best economic choice. Miners purpose is to mine and thats it just like a gold miner is mining to sell to have a functional business and just keeps a small amount for the lean times. A miner invest in machinery and a lot of other thins and not in gold/bitcoin, another investor will do that. Bitcoin is a commodity, it is modern Gold the currency aspect of it is just a added bonus just like gold is legal tender (depending on jurisdiction). Money is not something you buy like a ripple cost nothing to produce and millions are given to the banks for free, and you can buy some, lol. That system sound familiar. Why would anyone pay for something which cost nothing to produce, is not scarce as it can be copied endlessly and it does not matter when its started. Increase the market cap by 100B with the push of a button from $ 40 000 000 to $ 140 000 000 is literately worse scam than the the FED. Zero transparency, corporate centralized at least 92% of available still to be sold at any price which is dreamed up. Oh yeh give it to me baby a dream come true.  Its amazing how many people struggle with the word work. Satoshi is so far ahead its not funny in due time even the slowest one will catch up. 1. even when Bitcoin coin supply is zero, PoW is still needed in order to secure the network, therefore PoW has nothing to do with cost of producing Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not gold, PoW miners are not real miners. Real mining is required to extract gold, PoW mining is NOT required to produce Bitcoin, a PoS mining network could do the same thing, with nearly zero cost. 2. PoW's work is useless and meaningless work, there's no value in it. PoW extracts value from the Bitcoin eco-system, because Bitcoin eco-system is where the value is at, not the PoW network. 3. PoS can secure the network better than PoW, it's a proven concept as many PoW altcoins fall victim to 51% attack, and PoS altcoin are all secure and not attacked. 4. PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW extracts value out of the eco-system, and into the pockets of the mining interest group (miners/pools/hardware vendor/electric company). This is again a proven concept, as PoS eco-systems are rising to the top of coinmarketcap. Do you really consider PoS networks more secure than PoW? even when you can attack the network at zero cost with PoS? I dont know if post is troll or not I see now from your other posts you simply dont know understand how PoS works.. it is ok, when the attack happens and your coins are worthless maybe you will change opinion  Just ignore him. I don't know or care why he suddenly forked from Bitcoin. He ignores your points and stuffs you with strawmen or slaps you with red herrings. Whatever the reason, he spends way too much time in the Bitcoin forum talking about altcoins. PoW is work. You hit the nail on the head. He is basically saying that the value of work diminishes after the work is done (an old prostitute adage), which is true, but that's why we put value on it immediately and pay for it. PoS gets paid by debt which is a zero sum game. That's the subtle difference. If a miner doesn't work he doesn't get paid and vice versa. Successful miners work more efficiently than non. PoS would only if a government backs it with compounded debt. Maybe it is a purchased account by someone trying to pump PoS shitcoins? I agree, that PoS does not give the "miners" anything of value in exchange for their "stakes" as almost everyone essentially gets the same reward. I would say that people who advocate for PoW are people who are willing to work for their money/earnings while PoS supporters advocate for the government to provide welfare to them in exchange for nothing |
|
|
|
this isn't an easy task to do, and it definitely wouldn't be immediately popular. it's also something that hasn't been done before, so there are lots of things need to be done in preparation.
either way though, i don't think many shareholders would want to learn how to store their bitcoins.. which they would have to do is dell or overstock paid them in btc.
It would also not be feasible - it would be very difficult, if not impossible to gather a bitcoin address for each shareholder, as some may not respond to communications requesting such information immediately. You also have the issue that many shares are held via multiple layers of agents, and you have the question of who would be responsible for the TX fees when passing along the bitcoin from agent to agent (there would be thousands, if not millions of outputs so the TX fees would be substantial) |
|
|
|
in the dollar world no one says "zero point zero one dollars" thus the whole decimal system DOES need a common name for the small stuff.
some say penny some say cent.
after all small gold measures are not measures in millitonnes or microtonnes. they are measured in grams and ounces. so far the main buzz words are 'bit' and then 'finney'
i personally say 'bit', even though right now its still hard to do a single transaction of a 'bit' unless its part of a multisend. thus not everyone is using it as a common place name or decided their preference, due to their lack of personal need to. but as bitcoin continues to develop and coins begin to spread amongst more adopters the need for a small measure name will increase.
but one thing is for sure, seeing a faucet advertised as "giving free bitcoins" yet the reality being dust(random decimal) amounts is bad and i would have to say in that scenario it would be advantageous to use a term to describe smaller measure would benefit the OP now
i use the term dust(random decimal) or sats(precise decimal) if the amount is not exactly in increments of 0.00000100. just like people dont say that $0.56 is 11 nickels and 1 cent. or 5 dimes and 6 cent, they simply say 56cents.
so there is still a need for "satoshi's" but a name for 100 sats is also needed. and i think for long term understanding and future-proofing peoples comfort zones a bottom up (satoshi -> bitcoin) is easier to manage rather than a top down (bitcoin -> satoshi) as no one wants to be saying "Point Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh One Oh Oh Bee Tee Cee" as it sounds more like something you would say in bed, not a shop
so satoshi's, bits/finneys, other measures can all work happily together. alot better that the 'oh oh oh oh' orgasm screams, that people find harder to measure with so many zero's
I agree with most of your posting. Except I don't understand the red part. Would you care to elaborate: Do we really need a special name for 100 satoshis, instead of just calling it... " 100 satoshis"? We really do not need a special name. Having too many names for various units of measure for bitcoin will only confuse people and will likely slow adoption and slow down the time it takes for someone to pay from the time they are presented with a price to when a TX is sent as people will spend additional time calculating how much to send. Remember that with dollars, there are only two units of measure, dollars and cents |
|
|
|
I am rather surprised at their rather muted reaction. I would have thought they would be all over this trying to kick Bitcoin when it's down...
The media generally will try to be as unbiased as possible (at least is the case for the MSM). If a media outlet appears to be especially biased in any particular subject then it will lose it's credibility. The media also has no reason to dislike bitcoin as it could potentially help them in the future with payments for ad sales (it would be easy to facilitate such payments with bitcoin) |
|
|
|
Interesting attack indeed but h4xx0r who did you quote with the idea of giving to the next miner a share of your coinbase tx? It's trivial to give to the next miner outside the coinbase transaction by sending the reward as a transaction using one of the current inputs. Sure, then you have to scrape the bitcoins from elsewhere. To recap the attack in laymen's terms: If somebody paid 10,000BTC in transaction fees, miners would not care about block rewards for the next 10,000/25=400 blocks. Any miner that thinks it could outrun the biggest other miner would try to do so. If there is a draw between the top miners, such a battle could take a long time. If the top miners hold 10% of the mining power, they might try even when the other had a head start and was slowly building a chain that's growing faster than the own chain as they could still call their friends of other pools to team up catch that guy, essentially to the point where all miners took one side or the other and the weaker group gives up. Also the attack does only work if the biggest selfish miner is bigger than the total of his run-up competitor with all non-selfish miners, so it assumes a pretty corrupt mining landscape. The attack's effects: During such an episode, massive re-orgs would happen, clients would act strangely, Finney attacks would be slightly easier etc. and we would have a slightly higher level of drama. And we will never know who sponsored that drama  but it would not be a cheap endeavor. In additional to Danny's point above, you also have the issue that someone would need to incur the financial burden to pay these TX fees in the first place. There would be little economic benefit for someone to offer such a large TX fee, especially considering that the benefactor of such attack is unclear (therefore anyone attempting to profit off of an attack may or may not actually benefit in the event such attack is successful in slowing down the network). IMO this attack vector would be something that is very easy to fix - simply fork the blockchain to institute a maximum TX fee on a per block and per TX basis, the max TX fee on a block basis could be a rolling average (plus some additional margin) of the last 'n' blocks and the max TX fee on a TX basis could be "x" times the min recommended TX fee, and if a TX would warrant larger then the max TX fee then the TX can be split up into smaller TXs. |
|
|
|
And you can't have Govt regulation with anon...
For example, cars are regulated so they are safe... and you can find out who killed your mom in a hit and run...
With any degree on anon you cannot regulate cars... or planes... or your heart transplant team. No problem. People who want to continue to have government regulation and not have anonymity can stick to using people who are regulated by their government. You want it, you guys all agree together. Meanwhile, people who feel that the free market is adequate regulation can stick to that. It really comes down to what you just said. Good post. Here we go again. The libertarians are usurping a story and twisting it completely out of context. Nothing in the article said anything about avoiding government regulation.  Ironically any market that overstock creates would be subject to more regulation then other stock market like entities. I do think this would be a very interesting project, but they also have a lot of hurdles to overcome. |
|
|
|
lol such things make me laugh really:D just how do they think to monitor this stuff?I don't say automatically russian govt is so very stupid as to think its easy to "switch off" bitcoin knowledge, but really even its plan to switch off internet access in "time of crisis" couldnt stop bitcoin. just the volumes from russia on this forum suggest it's already engrained enough not to be forgotten..
It's basically impossible, think about it. How ridiculous it would be to monitor ever single computer for traces of Bitcoin. The amount of money they would lose trying to do this would be way bigger than what they could lose by just allowing Bitcoin flow freely. It's a lossing game and Putin is making a clown out of himself. The Russin government was actually looking into ways they could potentially turn off the internet in the event of a "crisis" which would be a little bit easier if they control (or sufficiently) control the ISPs in the country, they could simply direct them to stop providing interne access. |
|
|
|
all I did was pay one person a quarter to post any news on a subreddit I created, as detailed in the link provided (OP) translation: "i violated the rules of reddit by paying a shill to advertise my donation-soliciting web site, and I got burned" It was more then one shill that did this. I remember the thread the OP posted and several people had responded to his offer. This was not a small violation of the rules, but was rather a clear attempt of trying to game the system to get more money |
|
|
|
With the news on USB firmware hacks I was wondering if I should add a 3.5" floppy to my online computer to transfer from my cold storage old XP computer that already has a floppy. Would it be safer?
Yes, but not very incrementally so. A better solution would be to buy several USB sticks/drives made my various manufacturers from various stores in a random fashion. This would prevent an attacker from potentially being able to attack you, a bitcoin user, specifically. You would also have the risk of either floppy disk drive crash or the disk itself fail. This would make it impossible to spend your bitcoin until you can either replace or fix whatever broke. It would also be possible that you would be left without a way to maintain proper security and still be able to spend your bitcoin in the event you are unable to repair/replace a floppy disk/floppy drive, which could lead to a higher chance of theft in the future |
|
|
|
Recommend suing the forum, is like saying you should sue the other companies for supporting a site that happens to have advertised a company that went belly up, the owner of BFL may be a con/thief or whatever you want to call them, but he was obviously paying the bills for advertising. The forum is just interested in advertising revenue, and has a clear comment that you should basically do your research before buying from anyone. Everyone who doesn't do their research, is a little foolish IMHO. If they got scammed this is extremely unfortunate, and I wish no Ill will to anyone and their hard earned cash, but come on. its easy to find review sites for just about anything these days. As far as new comers, they can make a decision on their own who to buy equipment from based on feedback, and there was/is plenty of feedback to support the notion NOT to buy BFL and others here and the WWW, and the a place like (as example only) Bitmain and their record for on time delivery quality control, should maybe be considered above BFL. I haven't looked at the rating guide dogie or someone has regarding the manufacturers, but likely BFL isn't high on the list (I could be wrong, if I am I would question that then). I might also add, that the comment that the site does not endorse blah blah, not be a disclaimer, but some pretty straight forward advice. Saying some people are crooks (read between the lines basically). Regardless of "when" the comment was added, it was still added, and likely hindsight was 20/20, and they realised after the fact they should put this little tidbit there. It is a good idea in any case to have it there, since this game does have it's fair share of dishonest people (Which is extremely unfortunate). I agree. The forum's job is not to make sure that it's users do not get scammed. It is not a newspapers job (which the forum can be compared to) to make sure that an advertiser is complying with the law to the "t". |
|
|
|
So if all else fails, the elite would rather Bitcoin be on top, than russia or petrogold. I disagree. There are many elite people in other countries that do not have a problem with their currency being a world reserve currency. If they do not want the russian economy to be better then ours then better geopolitical policies are needed, not a better currency. It is there best and only chance. If Buffets Bershire Hathaway began using Bitcoin as a payment system, he would still retain being one of the richest men, just would need to learn how to work a cold wallet, and private key the same as he does to writing a check.
Using bitcoin is much different then writing a check. If a particular check is unusual then then the bank will likely contact you to confirm that it is okay to pay a certain check, and you can advise them not to even if you did write it. You also have other protections like the ability to put a stop payment on a check ect. With bitcoin on the other hand as long as the TX is valid there is nothing to stop anyone with the private key from sending a TX to themselves |
|
|
|
Great. A new all powerful bogeyman. Cryptofiat.
What are the essential characteristics of this new fictional threat? I note they have not been described anywhere up thread. Sorry if this was not clear. This means I should amend my text and make it more clear. Cryptofiat: governments (and megacorpo) recognize the usefulness of the blockchain tech but don't want to share the power of minting money with the world at large (Bitcoin) but want to keep tight control over it, like it'd been done for millenia (ahem, Fed). Example in the work: Nicaragua. Please, tell me if it is understandable. By "understandable", I do not mean you agree with it or not, just if you understand the idea. I think I understand the _idea_. But I don't understand the characteristics of an actual _implementation_. Sounds like you are scared of your shadowboxing sparring partner. Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain. I guess they can watch all the transactions, but they can already watch the vast majority with our current system. I don't think they'd constrian their abilities for this incremental (tyrannical) benefit. Another reason why the government would not want this is because with a publicly viewable blockchain everyone would know exactly what information is available and against them. With the current fiat system the government can not only monitor the flow of money but they do not necessarily need to tell a suspect of a crime the extent of the evidence against him (or what the government may be able to uncover in the future) which would give a suspect an incentive to confess if they have committed a financial crime. |
|
|
|
Don't pay!
I will promise not to kill you for 0.05 btc. Half price!
LOL. This is clearly a scam however the person sending the email is risking a lot by doing this as someone making these kinds of threats will certainly be investigated and law enforcement would probably put a lot of resources into finding the person/people behind these threats |
|
|
|
|
What exchange have you been using to pay signature payments? Do you think it is strange that they are taking such a large TX fee out even though the actual TX fee given to the miners is a standard size (.0006 taken from TX verses ~.0001 given to miners)
|
|
|
|
China has a major demographic problem because of the one child policy. Soon, it will have too much old people, a lowering of its active population and growing problems, just like Japan and now Europe.
Who knows what will happen 30 years from now? We could have immigration from other countries into China. I would find this somewhat unlikely. The standard of living of people living in China is really not that great. They also are lacking many rights that 'free' people generally take for granted (freedom of the press, uncensored internet, ect) |
|
|
|
people look at bitcoin as just a payment network, it seems to me alot of people miss the real revolution that bitcoin brings.
with bitcoin for the first time in 550 years we don't need to trust a bank to hold our money.
each and every one of us is a walking bank, capable of granting and taking loans without asking the government or anyone else for permission.
this is nothing short of a world changing shift in finance.
if bitcoin is adopted there will be no more bank bailouts, because we are the bank.
no more money printing by a central bank, if the government wants money to do something it actually has to ask us for it, or try and physically take it by force from each and every one of us!
no more stealth inflation robbery while the sheeple population is too ignorant to notice it is being robbed, even the dumbest person knows that when the government physically points a gun at you and asks for your money it is robbery, no one will put up with it.
So, what you wrote describes a benefit of the Bitcoin payment system. We don't actually need a bank to hold our dollars because we can hold it all in cash (or gold or silver). The reason we store money in banks today is because of the utility of the payment system. The superiority of the Bitcoin payment system now makes it unnecessary to give money to banks to hold. storing a bunch of gold or even worse cash at home is not exactly safe, anyone breaks in and you lost all of your money. Anyone with a significant amount of valuables (be it cash, gold, diamonds, bitcoin, ect) in their home should take steps to secure it to prevent theft in the event of a break-in of their house. The most common scenario would be for people to invest in some kind of safe to store their valuables in |
|
|
|
While the 3rd scenario does sound good on paper, in reality it is not. The fact is that government is worse at spending money then the private sector is (in other words it is spent less efficiently). You imply that the government would pay for all this which means that taxpayer money would not be spent efficiently (all money that government spends will eventually be paid for by taxpayers), unless you are part of the 47% who pay no taxes and rely exclusively on government you should care about this. For example the 2009 stimulus package that president Obama and the democrats passed ended up costing around $300,000 per ~$40,000 per year job created as a result of the stimulus.
I haven't read the discussion from the beginning it seems. Because this premise is wrong in the modern monetary system: all money that government spends will eventually be paid for by taxpayers Another problem is that you assume that we need more/better infrastructure. In many cases we do not and the money would be spent on things that would not even be used. One example of this is the $100 billion bullet train to no where in CA. Not only is the project expected to generate vastly less amounts of revenue then it will cost to build, but it is estimated to be greatly underutilized. There's always something to improve. If infrastructure is perfect, then spend money on fundamental science, medicine, education, whatever. All money that government spends does eventually need to be paid for by taxpayers. Even if the government never pays back the debt they incur to spend this money the government will need to have otherwise higher taxes in order to service the debt forever. All of you suggestions for government to spend money on other things (science, medicine, education, ect) could be more efficiently done in the private sector. |
|
|
|
|
Why is it that the only people that have posted here saying their VCC is working are newbies with very few posts?
This is not something that longer standing members would want to avoid publicly saying they purchased.
|
|
|
|
Do all governments think regulation is their primary job?  The bitcoin economy seems to have developed pretty well without (or because of) the government not intervening. Gov regulation will happen, the mainstream wont use bitcoin without it so as long as its "reasonable" regulation we all get rich and have extra resources to create bitcoin 2.0 to move the goal posts further. I agree. Mild government regulation will likely cause bitcoin to get an additional amount of legitimacy and will cause increased levels of adoption. Depend what level of regulation is imposed to BTC? If taxed a lot, it would be a burden for the development of btc. I had specified that mild regulation would be necessary. Additionally regulation and taxation are two separate issues. In the US at least it would be very difficult to impose any taxes on bitcoin that do not have the same type of tax for a fiat based transaction. If this would be imposed then the taxing authority would run into equal protection constitutionality issues. Regulation and taxation might be different, but given the government's past track record, taxation seems to be the end result that they pursue. I don't see any problem with taxing bitcoin as long as the taxes are not unique to bitcoin - meaning that any taxes that are paid on bitcoin transactions are paid on any other barter transaction and any fiat based transaction when applicable. |
|
|
|
|
