Bitcoin is being used in the underground economy is a good thing.
The way bitcoin wins is that everyone use it, even scumbag congressmen and the CIA.
The CIA almost certainly uses Bitcoin. They even invited Gavin to give a presentation on it. |
|
|
|
|
With a worm like that, modifying the Bitcoin clients would be more effective. Even with 20% of the Bitcoin network redirecting all their transactions to you, much more damage can be done than a 51% attack.
|
|
|
|
O'kay i'm throwing myself in the dust your argument is consistent and yes, Volume is an effect and not a cause. But if I've got it all backward a make a consistent profit in my trading, I must be wrong on something else also or I would be loosing money. Wondering what that might be?
Unless you are buying options, it is very unlikely that predicting when volatility will be high is going to improve your profit. As for predicting volatility, it's even more difficult than predicting the price. Also, two wrongs tend not to make a right. More often than not, getting something backwards and still profiting means that that something didn't matter, not that something else is also backwards. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I think it was only a 50% discount last time in March this year. A 0 fee week
would up the volatility right away.
I think the lesson is that the harder coins are to mine, the less people want to part with them. what we need now it a big scam gone bust like pirate. Maybe the coming big pre order ponzi. Any kind of regulatory intervention would also smoke out the tax free and SR types of the market.
We'll just have to wait it out. No need to panic sell or panic buy. Besides this hasn't gone on for very long, remember $5.50? that took two months.
I would think a 0% fee should lower volatility. It would definitely lower the spread. True, lower spread, which makes more traders stay online as they can make money, which will drive the size of bids and asks up, which will make the swings larger, which is pretty much the same as higher volatility. The 50% discount last time sure got things going again. People must be getting tired of eating cold turkey for two days now. The press don't have much to write about between Christmas and new year. Maybe that is the magic combination of media and general boredom we are waiting for? I still don't see how larger orders on the books (greater liquidity, less slippage) increases volatility. Higher volume may hasten an upcoming move, but the move should be more slow and steady with less slippage. Well orderbook orders and executed orders are often two different things. Also I'm not going to insist that I'm right, This was what I believe happened in March. So if you increase fee's, you get higher volatility? That can only be true up to a certain point where traders find other exchanges with lower fees. You don't either believe that volume in itself has a correlation with volatility? Indeed, but the causation is reversed. Volatility increases volume as traders come to capitalize on it, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I think it was only a 50% discount last time in March this year. A 0 fee week
would up the volatility right away.
I think the lesson is that the harder coins are to mine, the less people want to part with them. what we need now it a big scam gone bust like pirate. Maybe the coming big pre order ponzi. Any kind of regulatory intervention would also smoke out the tax free and SR types of the market.
We'll just have to wait it out. No need to panic sell or panic buy. Besides this hasn't gone on for very long, remember $5.50? that took two months.
I would think a 0% fee should lower volatility. It would definitely lower the spread. Yeah, a 0% fee has the least volatility because the market is most efficient. Well, unless negative fees are discounted. |
|
|
|
|
I think this is more of a hardware problem than a software problem. A good rule of thumb is: always target the computers made 2 years ago for a technical audience, 5 years ago for active internet users, and 10 years ago for the general populace. Bitcoin had previously thrived well enough on 2009 and 2010 hardware, but in the near future this will age with adoption.
Already, 2007 and 2008 hardware is beginning to become commonplace, leading to complaints that Bitcoin is slow or it takes too much space. SSDs made in 2010 are rarely greater than 5 USD/GB, so those aren't problems. Those in 2008, however, can be 20 USD or even more per GB, the best being smaller than 20 GB.
Hardware will continue to get older as the general populace begins to adopt Bitcoin. Eventually, 2004 hard drives such as 80 GB non-SSD drives will begin to run Bitcoin. This is where the lite nodes come in.
Bitcoin's growth will never outpace hard drive growth. But in the near future, the hard drives will be shrinking, not growing, as the technology that runs Bitcoin becomes older and older. It will be a rough 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm a bit confused here: did the theft happen at the time of Bitcoinica's shutdown? If it did, why wasn't it discovered earlier? You would assume that given Bitcoinica shut down after the Rackspace hack, the lack of funds to withdraw from would be obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies for how long it's taking, Christmas holiday was yesterday where I live. I will catch up shortly.
|
|
|
|
Add BitMarket.eu to the list. From another thread: Earlier this year, I had this "genius" idea which led me to making a fatal mistake. I thought I could provide a hedge fund service for Bitmarket users.
[...]
For the record - there are 20161 19980 BTC missing
Will do. I'm a bit busy right now, and there are a few more to catch up on, but this seems like a huge mistake so it will be prioritized. |
|
|
|
Would you explain the 246 ?
Because that is roughly when (well, a couple years before) the shift would go from 63 to 64 and become undefined. (See the standard, "The behavior is undefined if the right operand is negative, or greater than or equal to the length in bits of the promoted left operand."). Until then its just outputting zero which is the reasonable and expected behavior, after then the compiler is permitted to end the universe (but more likely it will return 0 on some systems and 50 BTC on others). Sounds exciting, let us leave it as it is, I want to see it happening then. I doubt Bitcoin will be around then. I doubt computers will be around then. Heck, I doubt humans as we know them will be around them. With power comes responsibility, and with the nigh-infinite power mankind is achieving I doubt we're responsible enough. |
|
|
|
bitcoins are divisible by 8 digits, so it's really 21 quadrillion units.
I've heard this spewed around so much it's getting old. There are not even 1/10 of 21 quadrillion units of Bitcoin: there are, as of the current protocol, going to be no more than 2099999997690000 (slightly less than 2.1 quadrillion) units. And given coin destruction, the actual number is likely 200 trillion fewer. |
|
|
|
Looks like you can see the code here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.7.1/src/main.cppint64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 210000 blocks, which will occur approximately every 4 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
As I've pointed out before, this is shoddy code. Once nHeight is about 13.23 million (admittedly some way off) this code has undefined right-shift behaviour. It needs a conditional such as if (nHeight / 210k >= 63) nSubsidy = 0; else nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210k); Why code is written with nFees, nHeight and nSubsidy as signed integers, given they can only ever be non-negative, is also weak and a source of bugs IMO. I'm sure you've seen this problem with using unsigned integers. |
|
|
|
Would it be fair to try to account for "lost coins" when determining the monetary base? There were estimates based on history of coin age of ~2M coins lost back in the sub-cent days.
Yeah, I'm skeptical of this ~2M figure that gets bandied around .... you could watch the blockchain to see when/if those old coins ever move. Maybe after a generation (70 years?) you could say they are "lost" ... unitl then I'm going to be conservative from a prudent savers perspective and assume they could be mobilised. I would not be surprised in the least if these ~2M bitcoins were lost. Movement of older coins has nearly halted since 2012. |
|
|
|
The rest of the currencies on there, as well as the currencies in other articles, have ISO codes. I will lobby for the return of Bitcoin as soon as its ISO 4217 code has been assigned. |
|
|
|
|
I'm more concerned about the one week average. A fortnight isn't any significant timeframe, and seems more like cherry picking.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
