bitcoin2cash, that's great! How much did these cost to make? (It looks like they're just business cards with scratch-off stickers applied, so maybe not too much.) Did you include any explanations or anything on the reverse?
I think this event could use something similar, but 0.1 bitcoins---or maybe a mix of 0.01 and 0.1---would be more reasonable than 1 at this point. The smaller the denomination, the more cards can be handed out.
If I remember my calculations, they were something like 18 cents each to make, not counting the ink and my time. The backs are blank. |
|
|
|
It's funny because that question is answered every time the difficulty changes. Maybe these people could use the search function once in a while, you know... Have you tried it? Challenge: Give me a search phrase that can answer this question without browsing beyond the 3rd page of results. My first hit, after looking for 2 minutes: search "network hashing", match any words, check search in topic subjects only, limit it to the mining sub section. Only one page of results, 3rd from the bottom. Thread if from February. Now consider that you actually knew what you were looking for and you still had to go through all that. |
|
|
|
Excellent post goatpig, thank you very much for your reply. I may ask you more questions about what you said later, but I want to talk more about this Mt. Gox website and dark pool trading.
Do you or does anyone know a lot about Mt. Gox and BTC trading, specifically in dark pools for large amounts of BTC? Basically is there anything from stopping me and some other large volume BTC traders (if any exist and I can contact them) from allowing reciprocal access to our dark pool trading information and localizing liquidity during certain market conditions? This seems to be a bit unfair to everyone else, but if there are no rules preventing this then why not?
Anyone who is interested in colluding or knows more about this subject please do not hesitate to contact me privately.
There's the OTC (over the counter) channel on IRCfreenode with a web of trust application attached to it. Some of the most trusted traders over there have a lot of BTC on their hands. It's probably the second best place after MtGox to get ahold of BTC and it's definitaly further away from the spotlights than Gox. What is the channel name? I tried #OTC, but there is just one person in there. #bitcoinOTC on IRCfreenode if I recall correctly #bitcoin-otc |
|
|
|
If I make a transaction in BTC and the seller does not deliver, what recourse is there? There are no chargebacks. Either insist that you receive the goods before sending BTC or use an escrow service if you don't want to expose yourself to that kind of risk. Where can I find a list of stores accepting BTC? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade |
|
|
|
If you can pay me in USD, CAD, AUD, or gold or something, then why should I choose BTC over any of those other items? I hate to sound like a broken record but again, adding one more method of payment expands your market. I'm not suggesting you forsake all other forms of currency for BTC or even prefer BTC over anything else. I am only suggesting that you should accept BTC as payment because you can stand to make extra revenue that you would not have made before, especially if you have something that appeals to the Bitcoin crowd or isn't currently being offered. |
|
|
|
It's funny because that question is answered every time the difficulty changes. Maybe these people could use the search function once in a while, you know... Have you tried it? Challenge: Give me a search phrase that can answer this question without browsing beyond the 3rd page of results. |
|
|
|
A payment in a commodity that has no known exchange rate for any given time. A commodity that is very new and its future uncertain to those new to the BTC. That's long term uncertainty. Take payments in BTC, sell the BTC in the short term and make your prices reflect that uncertainty. Then, if/when BTC crashes, it won't matter. It's fairly straightforward. You expand your market by accepting more than one method of payment. Are you actually running a business that this would apply to or are you just looking for a debate? |
|
|
|
I have read that concerns over hoarding BTC can be alleviated by more people accepting BTC. But why should I? Why should I accept your BTC as payment for something in leiu of something like a goldgram? It's better to accept two payment methods rather than one. Some people have gold but no BTC. Some people have BTC but no gold. You expand your potential market by accepting either. |
|
|
|
Sending cash in the mail has always sounded a little daft to me. At the very least shouldn't it be sent in a trackable way, like return receipt or something? Madhatter's site (and others) should recommend this, in my opinion. My business is based on a niche. It's for people that want to buy/sell BTC with anonymity. Therefore, tracking a package defeats that purpose. If you want security, I would recommend that you use a wire transfer and buy/sell on Mt Gox. |
|
|
|
I've only recently begun understanding Bitcoins and decided to ask my Economics professor about the viability of decentralized digital currency.
She responded by saying that it will not be sustained just as the Gold standard was replaced by the Dollar (in the US).
The Dollar is also backed by the Fed. and our confidence in it. It sounds like she's pissing Kool-Aid i.e. she drinks the Kool-Aid so deeply and so frequently that her urine is mostly Kool-Aid. |
|
|
|
OP: Welfare is deforming children!
Posters: [Citation needed]
OP: Well, there's an incentive...and these correlations...um...
Posters: GTFO
What's your point? |
|
|
|
the cost of the attack grows linearly with mining capacity, no more. so whether it's asymmetric to value doesn't change.
That tells me little about how much mining capacity there will be in the future and therefore how much it will cost to disrupt the network. |
|
|
|
The key phrase is "sufficiently CPU-rich attacker" which eventually would be infeasible for just a DDoS by a single attacker. Any attack has to include some kind of discussion about incentives. If I can make 2 billion by spending 1 billion then it makes sense. If I can piss the world off by spending 1 billion, there might be better ways to spend that money from the perspective of an attacker. Otherwise, if no profit is being made, we can just wait for the attacker to run out of money and resume business as usual.
the fatwallet link does exactly this sort of analysis. it would cost on the order of $700,000 for a competitor with a vested interest in the block chain's failure, or someone intending to profit from manipulating the exchange rate in the current block chain, to launch a dos attack. that also suggests that a government - any government - could very easily stop bitcoin if it wanted to. I assume that's right now. Is there any way to extrapolate to when we're at the point that he's talking about, when typical clients can't even be bothered to listen for all transactions or scan the entire block chain? |
|
|
|
Such a system is not “decentralized”, but more like a “replicated center” system, as there is an absolute necessity to gather all the existing data in a single point to make any meaningful operation. It's decentralized in that there is no single authority determining which transactions are valid or not. Thus, Bitcoin is only “peer-to-peer” in the sense of the British Peerage system. Bitcoin “commoners” must appeal to their “lords” who have sufficient means to judge on validity of transactions and to seal those transactions as valid, likely for a fee. In the British Peerage system, not just anyone can declare themselves a "lord". That's the exact opposite of Bitcoin where anyone can become a "lord" by simply downloading the entire block chain. Thus, for perfect anonymity, both sender and receiver have to split every complex transaction among separate pairs of throw-away identities. But at this point, transactions stop being technically atomic, in addition to the fact that the system becomes quite complicated and heavyweight. That's not an argument against anonymity. That's an argument against usability which wasn't on his list of things he was going to argue against. I would say he's moving goalposts. Here the assymetry goes the wrong way: those “honest” nodes need to burn maximum amounts of energy continuously, round the clock, 24x365, just to keep the system afloat. Not green at all! Just to keep the system afloat? No, that's a side effect. The reason why honest nodes are consuming resources is so they can make money, either through finding blocks and gaining a bounty or eventually, transaction fees. Meanwhile, an attacker may only mobilize his CPU power temporarily to carry out his deeds. What deeds? What do you think can be accomplished by controlling the network for a short amount of time? I admit that I don't know but do you? I'm not sure how fearful, uncertain or doubtful I should be without any specifics. Though, I admit "deeds" doesn't sound very pleasant. Potentially, a CPU-rich well-connected peer may delay his newly created block till a competing block is received. Then, the delayed block may be concurrently released, thus creating a tie. A sufficiently CPU-rich attacker may perpetuate this tie indefinitely, potentially making the network to flip-flop between two branches of transaction history, with somewhat unclear consequences. The key phrase is "sufficiently CPU-rich attacker" which eventually would be infeasible for just a DDoS by a single attacker. Any attack has to include some kind of discussion about incentives. If I can make 2 billion by spending 1 billion then it makes sense. If I can piss the world off by spending 1 billion, there might be better ways to spend that money from the perspective of an attacker. Otherwise, if no profit is being made, we can just wait for the attacker to run out of money and resume business as usual. Here and now (Netherlands, 2011) I enjoy an instant, secure, privacy-preserving payment system which charges no fees for domestic transfers. That's a fairly huge claim with nothing to back it up. Is he saying that the same attacker able to bring down a decentralized system somehow can't bring down a centralized one? That seems implausible especially considering that he can't even audit the code he's depending on for his alleged security. He just has to take someones word for it! Either way, a data center full of GPU miners costs orders of magnitudes higher than a few exploding yellow vans. Also, if he's not paying any fees, who is paying for the infrastructure? Most likely, he is, with his tax money or if the fees are charged to the merchants then he's paying for it through higher prices for goods and services. Few things in this world are free. Of course, "privacy-preserving" has to be false or at least qualified. Privacy from whom? If it's just from the other end of the transaction, I can do that too. I'd like privacy from everyone, including the government and all their contracting middlemen. |
|
|
|
Could you point to some examples? I haven't noticed this happening much, but then I've not been reading the forums that actively, either.
Is there a specific reason why you want examples? I'm not really interested in calling people out. I don't see how that could be productive. This is just a general plea so people that feel they identify with my description can at least evaluate their behavior and decide how they want to proceed. |
|
|
|
Facts: - On April 13, the price fluxuated between 0.92 and 0.93 USD.
- Significant portions of the log are omitted in the paste above
- After fumbling around with technical details (escrow topics, etc), we decided to avoid the complexity and:
- We agreed that I would purchase 25 BTC at the price of 1.15 USD from him on April 13th, with our word at stake
- He never showed on April 13, up until today, May 17
- I am still willing to buy 25 BTC at the price of 1.15 USD
- I was never under any obligation to sell the 25 BTC back, at any time
- Had he showed on April 13th, I would have completed the sale then, and held onto the 25 BTC until I could sell it at 8.90 USD, making a significant profit
- (edit-added) blarzong last appeared on IRC on March 15th
It is in fact "ruhvix" who is the scammer at this point. You are technically right that you are only obligated to buy what you said you would buy but that's not really keeping with the spirit of the wager. This doesn't seem to be a standard situation where exercising an option in the main concern. If the price was $0.93 and you said you would buy 25 BTC at $1.15 then that would be a profit of $5.50 for him. This can still be settled by doing some other trade where you buy BTC at a loss so that he makes $5.50. There's no promise that BTC would have went up so offering to buy 25 BTC at $1.15 right now is a non sequitur, as well as the mention of the time that has elapsed. If anything, that's to your benefit since you had more time to come up with the money. It seems odd to complain about having to pay your debt later rather than sooner. I wish my creditors would treat me like that. |
|
|
|
|
The GPL is just another form of intellectual property which is incompatible with Libertarianism.
|
|
|
|
Atheism means you do /not/ believe in a god. not that you believe their is no god. This might sound like a fine hair to split to you, but to me, and many others like me, it isnt.
Then babies, plants and rocks are atheists too. That's not a very informative definition. I think to be an atheist you have to at least believe, either probably or certainly, that there isn't a God. No, that's a totally informative definition. Yes, babies, plants and rocks are atheists. The point is, for me at least, that being an atheist means I don't even think about it that much. The God/No God question is just not part of my thought process. Maybe there is a god, sure I can't prove it. But when it comes down to it, I just don't care. So you're saying that you're an atheist because you've never considered it, just like babies, plants and rocks have never considered it? |
|
|
|
Please collect data because this is just perception.
I don't understand what you're asking. How do I collect data to prove hostility exists? It's subjective. I didn't say there is more hostility than not if that's what you think. Please try to be more detailed with your objections. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
