Would you kindly reconsider the "prices" for donator status and VIP status - just to underscore the concept of benevolent deflation...
Theymos has said that he wouldn't. Will the requirements for the donator or VIP status ever change? As it stands right now $50 for donator and $500 for VIP is neccary. Perhaps subcategories of donators could be created to encourage donations? Many people will be hesitant to give 5 BTC but I'm Sure more people would be willing to give 1 BTC to be called a mini donator  just a thought... The prices won't be reduced. They may be increased if the BTC price gets really low. Additional lower-price statuses may be created later. I don't want to manually deal with too many payments, though. What if, hypothetically, a BTC becomes worth 5000 US$?
I'll create new statuses. I might rename the current ones. Also, I'll buy an island.  |
|
|
|
Also you should edit your post or do this in the future so the chart fits on normal monitors: [img width=900]http://blockchained.com/stuff/bitcointalk_stats.png[/img] This is a very stupid way of doing this. Rather than restricting the size on the image, get theymos to do it on the stylesheet. Then it will fit on all monitors and also won't be artificially shrunk on widescreen monitors. |
|
|
|
Also, this could be compared to market cap to find out whether BTC is currently over or under valued compared to prior dates, could it not? I think that'd be a neat analysis. In fact, we can at least easily compare the two charts. I'm not sure... firstly: think about what you see when you remove the exchange rate from both charts (they have it in common, right?) secondly: bitcoins value only stems from its transactional features in part. In fact I think the majority of it's value is rooted in its store-of-wealth features. So you can't judge wether or not bitcoin is over-/undervalued just by looking at transaction volume. It surely plays its part because it indicates usage and increase in usage definitely results in increase of bitcoins value. Could you calculate the average ratio between change and transaction output? Or better yet, chart this ratio? That would be insanely useful. |
|
|
|
It means you shouldn't normalize it to the max. That doesn't make sense for most correlations. Instead, normalize to the geometric mean.
I concur. Do you concur? So what is the proper way to deal with zeros under these circumstances? Ah, zeros are a pain. |
|
|
|
 Whats it mean? It means you shouldn't normalize it to the max. That doesn't make sense for most correlations. Instead, normalize to the geometric mean. |
|
|
|
um wouldnt people just adopt clients that represented value in satoshis instead of btc?
You can already set the reference client to display values in Bitcoins, Millies or Mikes. It would be a straightforward patch to allow Satoshis too. Nanobitcoins would be a better choice than satoshis, given how the latter is likely to change value in the next few years when decimal points are added. |
|
|
|
Err make that 10 @ 5
This is functionally equivalent to 8 @ 5, considering how only 8 slots are being sold. |
|
|
|
If you use a properly designed client (electrum for instance) then you sacrifice no security, only privacy (arguably).
Pedantically, an electrum server can put you on a not-longest fork, and from there could give you fake payments which look confirmed (electrum is gradually getting better too, so in six months this may no longer be true). More generally, if most Bitcoin users follow your reasoning bitcoin itself will be insecure— subject to theft, inflation, etc. Because the marginal personal security/privacy cost is low (and likely to be underestimated due to hyperbolic discounting and underestimation of small risks) in running a reduced node we have a tragidy of the commons risks where almost no one honest runs full nodes (except attackers as they have a clear incentive!) and the network dies. To address this we should strive to minimize the cost of running a full node (relative to technology) and we should produce altruistic software which automatically runs a full node on hardware that can handle it without burdening the user. Wasn't there a proposal before to pay full nodes? That idea could possibly be explored more, though it would require a hard fork. |
|
|
|
Not quite, the accepting side would still see the mining of the non-accepting side. It's not mutually exclusive.
Depends which blockchain is longer, right? Isn't that the whole point of requiring more than 51% of the hashrate? If the blockchain with the >1MB blocks is longest, the clients on the accepting side will not see the mining of the non-accepting side because they will be working on a different blockchain. But if the blockchain with the <=1MB blocks is longest, both clients will see the same thing & be working on the same blockchain. Hints why it'd make sense to do it now because there aren't any blocks being generated anywhere near the 1MB limit. So both clients could co-exist for the time being. There wouldn't be any issue until a >1MB block is generated & accepting nodes own more than 50% of the hashrate. The point is, at 50/50, the non-accepting side will eventually win over because the accepting side still accepts their blocks. At a certain point, their chain will be longer. At 51% or above, the accepting side should eventually carve their own blockchain—but it might take a while. |
|
|
|
Rounding is significant here, I guess. Here's my result with 5 minutes of Python: Year 0 ending, 500 billies and 500 does (1000 goats)
Year 1 starting...
Year 1 ending, 600 billies and 900 does (1500 goats)
Year 2 starting...
Year 2 ending, 1000 billies and 1620 does (2620 goats)
Year 3 starting...
Year 3 ending, 1800 billies and 2916 does (4716 goats)
Year 4 starting...
Year 4 ending, 3240 billies and 5249 does (8489 goats)
Year 5 starting...
Year 5 ending, 5832 billies and 9285 does (15117 goats)
Year 6 starting...
Year 6 ending, 10335 billies and 16549 does (26884 goats)
Year 7 starting...
Year 7 ending, 18406 billies and 29493 does (47899 goats)
Year 8 starting...
Year 8 ending, 32803 billies and 52555 does (85358 goats)
Year 9 starting...
Year 9 ending, 58454 billies and 93644 does (152098 goats)
Year 10 starting...
Year 10 ending, 104155 billies and 166839 does (270994 goats)
Year 11 starting...
Year 11 ending, 185568 billies and 297267 does (482835 goats)
Year 12 starting...
Year 12 ending, 330635 billies and 529658 does (860293 goats)
Year 13 starting...
Year 13 ending, 589111 billies and 943721 does (1532832 goats)
Year 14 starting...
Year 14 ending, 1049653 billies and 1681477 does (2731130 goats)
Year 15 starting...
Year 15 ending, 1870221 billies and 2995974 does (4866195 goats)
Well, the problem is, PG and I came up with different equations based on the set of criteria. I think PG made the assumption that all billies and does were 1 year of age at the start of the experiment, whereas I made the assumption that the age was already evenly distributed according to how the equation would eventually play out (i.e., 1/5 of the does were 5 years old, and thus were under the "mortality" rate, even in the first year). Ah, I see. I used PG's method to obtain my numbers, which do seem to indicate more goat meat than 5 Earths in 20 years. |
|
|
|
Also, throwing it into Excel real quick-like, I calculated 244,032 billies and 418,341 does at the end of 20 years.
Hmm, I just realized that my numbers don't check out after the first year. I think Phinnaeus made the mistake here, though. Now, to calculate the number of goats after year two, there would be 600 (original/Y2) - 480 (80%) - 100 (20%) + 900 (offspring)= 920 billies, and 900 (original/Y2) - 180 (20%) + 900 (offspring)= 1,620 does.
It seems that 80 billies die twice: of the 100 that die because they survived the last year, 80 died again through routine cleanup. This is probably an error. There should be 1000 billies at end of year 2. |
|
|
|
Rounding is significant here, I guess. Here's my result with 5 minutes of Python: Year 0 ending, 500 billies and 500 does (1000 goats)
Year 1 starting...
Year 1 ending, 600 billies and 900 does (1500 goats)
Year 2 starting...
Year 2 ending, 1000 billies and 1620 does (2620 goats)
Year 3 starting...
Year 3 ending, 1800 billies and 2916 does (4716 goats)
Year 4 starting...
Year 4 ending, 3240 billies and 5249 does (8489 goats)
Year 5 starting...
Year 5 ending, 5832 billies and 9285 does (15117 goats)
Year 6 starting...
Year 6 ending, 10335 billies and 16549 does (26884 goats)
Year 7 starting...
Year 7 ending, 18406 billies and 29493 does (47899 goats)
Year 8 starting...
Year 8 ending, 32803 billies and 52555 does (85358 goats)
Year 9 starting...
Year 9 ending, 58454 billies and 93644 does (152098 goats)
Year 10 starting...
Year 10 ending, 104155 billies and 166839 does (270994 goats)
Year 11 starting...
Year 11 ending, 185568 billies and 297267 does (482835 goats)
Year 12 starting...
Year 12 ending, 330635 billies and 529658 does (860293 goats)
Year 13 starting...
Year 13 ending, 589111 billies and 943721 does (1532832 goats)
Year 14 starting...
Year 14 ending, 1049653 billies and 1681477 does (2731130 goats)
Year 15 starting...
Year 15 ending, 1870221 billies and 2995974 does (4866195 goats)
|
|
|
|
I think the name "Bitcoin" should never be put into company names. Walmart is not called Dollar Walmart, nor is the Bank of America called the American Bank of Dollar.
Let the second wave of confusion and misunderstanding begin.
Perhaps airlines would be less confusing if they took the word "air" out of their names. It's bad enough that all the airlines refer to themselves as "XXXXX Airlines", even though each one is an airline in the singular, rather than the plural. You're missing the point. "Air" relates to function, which all names should have. Just like Wal mart. Bitcoin Central is not the centre of Bitcoin, even though its name implies such. AeroMexico accepts USD, which is not common to accept in Mexico (where they accept peso). Even so, its name does not include "dollar". |
|
|
|
In August 2012, Bitcoin announced that it was launching a Mastercard debit card. Even better, the first ever Bitcoin bank was established in December. * kiba faceplams. I've mentioned this before: I think the name "Bitcoin" should never be put into company names. Walmart is not called Dollar Walmart, nor is the Bank of America called the American Bank of Dollar.
Let the second wave of confusion and misunderstanding begin.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to see this. Local growth is excellent, and Bitcoin needs to have local hubs before it can succeed globally. How's the merchant adoption there going?
|
|
|
|
We've had pleas for civility, Atlan rules for the forum, and various other proposals for order in the forum. Although I prefer a democratic, free forum where no rigid rules are in place (aside from, of course, legal considerations), I also find it helpful to incorporate general techniques that facilitate cooperation and constructive collaboration, rather than groupthink or libel (and yes, forum writings are libel and not slander). As such, I intend this thread to be a collection of "fatawa", which are distinct from "laws" in that they are issued by the governing body. If you have a pet peeve about nonconstructive behaviour on this forum, please issue a "fatwa". I hope this thread to be education to all of us, even if we do not agree. The term "fatwa" originates from Arabic (فتوى), is properly pluralized "fatawa", and although it does not have a direct English translation, it means something akin to "opinion" or "advice", but more formally. Although fatawa are often in relation to Islam, they do not necessarily have to be—fatawa can just as easily be used secularly. Fatawa are not rules, but rather opinions of the issuer that promote healthy societies. To start off, my fatwa for the day is inspired by recent events. Fatwa 2013-01-06
I believe that BitcoinTalk members should respond, not react.
The recent events involving controversial user torac have brought the importance of this to light. Rather than remaining calm, devising a solution, and informing his customers accordingly, torac elected to enter a temper tantrum, in the process destroying whatever reputation he had. His reaction was rushed and nonconstructive. It was a waste of time to react, as it did not grant him any concessions—in fact, it did the opposite.
Anger is a powerful emotion, and displaying it causes other powerful emotions. Many healthy threads degenerate because of angry and rushed remarks.
To avoid this in the future, angry BitcoinTalk users should first consider the situation, take time off, and prepare a civil response that promotes positive and constructive communication. Well thought-out responses invite intelligent counterresponses, while rushed reactions only invite emotional flame-wars. This common childhood moral is equally applicable to an online forum.
|
|
|
|
What is the cost, aside from the 1%, for using this service? Is it available to corporate entities, or only to individual ones?
Only the 1%. And only individuals. I assume this will only work if a large amount of people participate, so I will sign up. |
|
|
|
|
Have we lost touch with what "scammer" means? A public company's owners have limited liability; they are not at fault if the company goes under or fails to meet its obligations. Unless someone made the YABMC issuers cosign the debt, there is no reason they have to pay it back to the shareholders—everyone will have to settle with a dividend of 0.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the cost, aside from the 1%, for using this service? Is it available to corporate entities, or only to individual ones?
|
|
|
|
Excellent! However, it seems the Israeli Libertarian Party is not very mainstream, as "it has had no representation in the Knesset". (I am unfortunately not well-versed in Israeli politics, and do not know how their Knesset works—if it's similar to the Us's, this is not a concern). Do any bigger political parties accept Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
