Hmmf. I see what you're saying. If I had $50k that I could afford to lose it sure would be fun to bat around the BTC market like a cat playing with a mouse, but this is similar to saying that what some hedge funds or other big institutional 'investors' have done in the past is OK too. The result of both of these types of actions is clear - it makes the market for the smaller player unpredictable and dangerous to be involved in. In one case, the small guy might lose or gain big on his BTC, in the second case, people might (and did) lose their houses. Personally, I think these two should be classed as the same, and the guy paying with BTC is as bad as the actions of people in the sub prime mortgage crisis. I don't mind people trying to manipulate the market. For a single, non-rich investor, this might be the one opportunity they would have in their life to have enough strength to move an entire market (legally, that is).
There's a symbiotic relationship here, where miners and those only interested in trading bitcoins are mutually beneficial. Traders, even vicious ones, give value and validation to the currency. Also, other v-words may be involved.
What you do with your own money is fine. It only influences the market to the extent that you pay for it. The housing/bailout shit is totally different. They played the market in a bad way and lost and then stole money to make themselves whole. Yes, they made houses too expensive, people who did the right thing and refrained from overpaying for a house should have benefited by their saved dollars being worth much more, but instead new dollars were printed their deserved gains were taken and given to the losers of those bets. If someone makes bitcoins too expensive then they will be cheaper later and you will be rewarded by affording more bitcoins later. If you are wrong and bitcoins are currently undervalued because tons of people still don't know about them then you miss an opportunity. Make your best guess. |
|
|
|
Yeah. I guess my point is, we shouldn't close our minds to alternative designs.
I mean Vandroiy already convinced me the existing setup where all transactions are flood-filled to the network with attached fees won't work. The insurance/pay-per-gigahash model is a slightly different scheme, whether you think it's Bitcoin or not Bitcoin is, I guess a matter of opinion. Now I'm getting convinced the insurance/p-p-g model won't work (well) either.
The problem with a single chain is it sets a single speed and security level for everyone, though transactions have wildly varying tolerances to risk. For trading with my family I don't need any PoWs at all. For huge trades between people who don't trust each other you need way more than the average. Most trades are probably for internet type purchases today, probably less than a few thousand dollars worth of value.
Some people will over-pay, others will underpay (free riders) ..... it's not clearly the best solution.
However, I don't know what a better solution would be right now.
What insight am I missing? Can't you just do very low tx fee with your family and friends to 'prove' you don't really need good and fast service? Then if you get it anyway no one is hurt by your riding because the tx is so cheap to process, if you have to wait that's a risk you take. If you can't afford the risk you pay more, the spillover benefit doesn't hurt you. In a tiny way it helps since people who use the same money as you benefit and you are better off when your (potential/statistical) trading partners are better off. I kind of hope I live another 118 years just to see the system keep working without block rewards. :-) |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, wait until it passes max neg int and resets and withdraw max pos int?
I don't know why he made a new site and let it go to crap. Should have sold it for something back when he had a reputation.
edit: Not trying to freak you out, it'll probably get fixed eventually.
|
|
|
|
The Internet was a nerd freindly only system one day too.
Hmm, maybe making it norm friendly is a mistake. |
|
|
|
1. Buy Bitcoins 2. Make friendly software and sites 3.  ? 4. Profit? Maybe people are doing this. If you look around and think so, try this: 1. Buy Bitcoins 2. ? 3. Profit? |
|
|
|
|
Is anyone in this thread actually saying that if I pay someone less than X/hr they think it is right to use force against me?
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, you are just a tease.
|
|
|
|
In a very short time (much shorter than it takes to inflate the bubble) BitCoins will crash right down back to $0.
They might drop a lot but the only way for them to reach 0 is for no one to want to buy any from me after I, personally, have bought every single bitcoin. Lol, we'll get in a bidding war around $1/21000 per coin. |
|
|
|
|
I made a transaction a few hours ago with .01 fee and it is 0/unc, not in any block in blockexplorer and not in the list of unconfirmed tx at bitcoincharts. I did not look to see if I had connections at the time I sent it. I am bouncing between 1 and 2 connections now. I'm guessing that I had none or a dead end when I sent and no one has heard about my tx, is that probably what happened? It will rebroadcast forever, right?
edit: Already in the unconfirmed list. I have 3 connections now. I should mention that I did restart the computer and didn't turn Bitcoin on right away so this didn't really take several hours, not sure exactly how long, but at least 15 minutes after I got the computer back on.
|
|
|
|
This is stable?
This is different, over 6 hours within a 10 cent range.
For real, 6 hours is like a month in Bitcoin time. And 1% is like .01% in Bitcoin fluctuations. |
|
|
|
I think it's worth keeping an open mind about the proof of work aspect of Bitcoin though. Satoshi wanted to design a system that didn't require any trust at all. Whilst we sometimes say Bitcoin doesn't have any middlemen, in reality it has a large number of middlemen who help people who don't trust each other trade. You don't have to trust the middlemen either, making it (theoretically) a very open and liquid market ... at the cost of burning a lot of electricity.
It may be that the zero-trust configuration isn't actually the best or most useful in the end, if the benefits of a fluid market aren't outweighed by the PoW costs. The proposal of using a web of trust to order transactions rather than PoWs has the disadvantage that it raises huge barriers to entry (how does a new node become trusted in such a system, without opening it up to easy attack?), but the advantage that the energy costs are very low.
Absolutely, I don't need to pay a bunch of miners to facilitate trade between people I trust for more than the amount involved. Bitcoin just opens my trading world up from like 6 people to potentially 6 billion. |
|
|
|
Also if a chain has no per block minted coin rewards right from the start we can see right from the start how nice transaction fees look as rewards.
How do any coins come into existence? |
|
|
|
Two months ago while reading reviews on http://www.guru3d.com/. I noticed an ad from compute4cash, saying they would pay me for doing computations with my gpu. I thought that was awesome,but after about 2 weeks I emailed them asking what the hell it is my gpu's were working on. They replied:Bitcoins. I then googled bitcoin,the rest is history. Btw I dumped compute4cash like a brick!  Haha, I thought they were a tad sleazy, but it's nice that they told you straight up. |
|
|
|
|
Verifying the validity of a tx is super fast and easy. Burying is more like it. The more and more difficult blocks piled on top the harder it is to dig them back up.
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is a criminal. There are 10k+ laws and you don't know them and can't follow them. Criminal has been synonymous with person for a long while now.
Unless you mean something else by crinials. I don't know what it could be, but I also don't know how you can misspell a word you put in all caps.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, what a bold prediction. If the value keeps going down it will lose it's value? Holy revelation batman.
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding exchange fees. As more and more things can happen inside the bitcoin economy you will need to pay the in and out less frequently. Also cheaper exchanges will tend to emerge over time.
|
|
|
|
My interest is in economics, specifically Austrian School. I read a blog post months ago from Mencius Moldbug (before Satoshi, he was the shadowiest nom de keyboard I knew of) on Unqualified Reservations suggesting it would be a good idea to get a few hunerd-ya know-just in case it took off.
Take one trillion, divide by 21,000,000 and you get a derived value of ~$47/BTC
$47/BTC
Is that Austrian division?  |
|
|
|
|
The free transactions is not a good selling point. For one it isn't completely true, and it isn't the breakthrough here.
If you think there is already a good money available then Bitcoin will seem silly. If you realize that all the monies we have access to have huge failings then Bitcoin seems amazing.
A money needs to be: divisible, fungible, durable, transferable, and scarce.
Government money fails because they always debase it by printing more, it is not scarce.
Gold is pretty good, but it is very hard to divide and recombine for normal people and it is expensive and risky to send it far away.
Bitcoin excels on every feature.
|
|
|
|
This sort of proposal comes up from time to time.
These ideas don't work because they mix up spam with bulk mail. The problem of stopping spam is correctly categorizing logical streams of mail and calculating whether the recipient wants them - not just making sending large blasts of mail hard.
Consider that your proposal would make it hard to run mailing lists, forums that send mail to confirm registration, etc. Your proposal would not stop spammers from hijacking accounts/computers and using them to send lots of mail, leaving the owner with the bill (this already happens today except the "bill" comes in the form of blacklisting, captchas, phone verifications etc).
I think it could work if the fee is paid to the recipient and there is a one-click payback button. Desired bulk mailers will have no problem. And they can incentivise people to payback by removing them from the mailing list for not paying back. You could even have a payback double button that would draw from the excess you've got from not paying everyone back. Also you could drop a hint by not paying back your aunt's emails. I think it isn't a killer app though because it isn't a problem for people. Google seems to have solved it algorithmically. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
