I see neither of you address the security issue, is this not a concern ? Or should this be an exercise merely left to the user ? If bitcoin.org offers security recommendations for users bitcoin.org is taking on a responsibility for other people's personal computer security. It is a bit unfair to expect them to do that. They should limit themselves to pointing to relevant material imho. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Island  ... HK, Singapore(?), somewhere that has no existing cap. gains tax to begin with would be good start ... New Zealand(?) |
|
|
|
This is pretty effing historic, guys. Mark your calenders!!! March 28th 2013 - Total Bitcoin market capitalization value reaches 1bn $. Next stop: 1tr $. I say the Time Man of the Year should be Satoshi Nakamoto.
I smell a betsofbitcoin coming on ... which year will Satoshi Nakamoto be Time Magazine's Man of The Year? |
|
|
|
As I mentioned above, you're running wrong code. This is not a pool server, it's just a stratum server. Please use launcher_demo.tac from stratum-mining.
So now, I have completely removed all references to stratum from system, re-cloned: https://github.com/slush0/stratum-miningI've edited config.py and launched with DEBUG output... It's stuck at: waiting for bitcoin_rpc with no useful DEBUG output on the live output or in "stratum.log" I assume that there are some changes which need to be made to the bitcoin_rpc interface to make it compatible with litecoind, but with no useful DEBUG output to give me errors at specific line numbers inside of specific files/scripts I have no idea what to change... Any ideas...? most likely port number maybe? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47417.0 |
|
|
|
I think they make some good points. Bitcoins is NOT for the faint of heart. This is the rocket ship of trading for the last 3 centuries ... you have got to have balls of steel to be riding this pig! Early adopters are either going to get rewarded richly for their risk appetite or royally screwed. Bitcoins are fascinating, for mathematicians, economists, traders, investors, politicians, regulators, and anarchists. And while watching the currency develop is entertaining, the experimental currency is no place for serious investing given the risk versus reward. Attempting to trade in established currencies is difficult enough. They may not think it is "serious investing" but .... |
|
|
|
My thoughts:
1. Maybe the usd is worth less than we think it is.
2. As FreeMoney said, it is also a distribution method, and all we are really paying is about five cents per transaction (which I imagine will be revised downward soon).
3. Perhaps a good metric to determine if BTC is overvalued is price divided by total BTC exchanged per day.
4. Many people (like me) run a node without mining and without compensation, for the good of the network.
5. We are not in any sort of steady-state equilibrium, and temporary distortions are to be expected.
Yep, this ^^^ People need to start thinking in terms of BTC not US$ ... it is messing with your minds. Basically, right now the Bitcoin network is producing 3600 btc per day to secure 10.9 million btc ... leave any other flexible, fake measures of value out of the equations and it makes sense. Last year it was producing 7200 btc to secure up to 10 million btc. In 4 years time it will be producing 1800 btc per day to secure 15 million btc. It is an easily described function of time of how many btc the network will be producing to protect the currently existing stock of btc, you could plot it if you like. It has been factored in that the network will need more btc produced to support it earlier in the development phase and less later on. The miners just happen to be the protectors and primary beneficiaries of the coin production so it is easy to conflate those separate functions when trying to decide if the system is "fair". |
|
|
|
GLBSE reloaded, bigger and badder  |
|
|
|
Trace Mayer is scheduled for an interview focusing on Bitcoin on BBC Newsnight on 26 March 2013 at 10:30pm London time (6:30EST; 3:30pm PST). Any help with recording, etc. would be appreciated. NOTE: The full 9:20 segment is available. It followed a rather hair raising piece on Cyprus and potential capital controls. Well done Trace ... wish they had let you say more. You had them on the run, just keeping it simple and sane. That stuttering waif from The Economist was trying so hard to say "Gold Bad, Bitcoin Bad!" that he couldn't string a relevant, sensible sentence together. His body language seemed incredibly defensive. |
|
|
|
|
Nice site ... and concept.
|
|
|
|
It's very simple, No, but what is simple is to pontificate loudly on forums. I've got data on price and mining costs going back to when bitcoin was less than US$0.05 that shows you to be wrong. In fact, it has yielded some quite simple and profitable trading strategies, and no you won't be seeing it ... but keep believing it is "simple", is good for me. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is backed by the cost of electricity (and equipment) required to compute its proof of work.
Not correct, though people say this very often. "Backing" when talking about a currency has a very specific, important meaning. It means that some party has promised to redeem that currency for some other good of value. Backing requires a backer, in other words. It requires someone's promise to back Item A with Item B. This is how paper money can have real value, because if it's backed by a government or bank or corp that will give you gold/silver for it, then it has that same value by proxy. That's backing. Bitcoin is not backed by anything, nor anyone. It is a resource, a commodity, a good in and of itself. The cost of electricity/equipment does not back Bitcoin whatsoever, just as the cost of dredging deep-sea mud from the ocean floor doesn't back the price of this mud on the open market. I agree mostly. Electricity price does however set a floor on the cost of production, while we are in the "block reward" phase at least. Bitcoin cost of production cannot be overlooked but is currently insignificant given the size of the monetary premium in the current BTC price, and will probably remain insignificant unless there is a massive crash. Cost of production is the reason BTC did not go to zero after the last crash but stopped around ~US$2. Think of it like the backstop ... way, way, way down there and it is of course tied to difficulty and thus popularity of mining, i.e. network adoption. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is too awesome..
First of all the concept of money itself is mind-boggling.. Now we have true money that is backed by natural resources...
The more I think.of it, the more I realize how much we are living in the Matrix!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8YO5icNGn0Bitcoin is this telephone call to the Matrix ... I know you're out there...I can feel you now. I know that
you're afraid. You're afraid of us, you're afraid of
change...I don't know the future...I didn't come here to
tell you how this is going to end, I came here to tell you
how this is going to begin. Now, I'm going to hang up
this phone, and I'm going to show these people what you
don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world
without you...a world without rules and controls, without
borders or boundaries. A world ... where anything is
possible. |
|
|
|
Verbose prose aside ^^^ .. you need to justify your assumptions, Peter Surda has skewered the whole argument with less than a sentence. Peter Surda: the assumption that money is the only liquid asset. Fix this and your other worldly reasoning might be worthwhile or else you are just blowing a whole lot of hot air in forum where people could care less. |
|
|
|
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/fincen-spying-plan-invites-privacy-workarounds-1057728-1.htmlJon Matonis - on financial privacy., FinCEN workarounds. Although bitcoin was not singled out by name, the guidance appears directed at cryptocurrencies that operate in a peer-to-peer, distributed fashion such as Bitcoin.
The primary impact of the likely tighter compliance will be felt by the bitcoin-to-fiat exchanges operating in the U.S. and this will lead to jurisdictional competition, as seen in online casino gambling where the more entrepreneurial jurisdictions rose to dominance by embracing the technology early and not overregulating.
Almost serendipitously, discussions about adding privacy extensions to the Bitcoin cryptographic money protocol have been increasing lately.
Bitcoin is nonpolitical money and it falls outside the scope of reporting financial institutions. Since bitcoin does not provide user and transactional privacy by default, multiple bitcoin wallets and Tor, a client software and volunteer server network that enables online anonymity, can enhance privacy without modification to the core Bitcoin code. Nonetheless, code-modifying proposals for augmenting Bitcoin privacy have been introduced. One idea calls for automatic mixing techniques, which would periodically give all users the opportunity to shuffle coins among one another, making the money harder to trace without implicating individuals. Another concept is "coin control," a method for users to select which of their wallet’s multiple addresses to use as the "from address" (currently picked somewhat randomly by the client software).
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is many things but none of those things alone.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is simultaneously:
- Currency;
- Commodity;
- Store of Value;
- "Meta Stock" representing a share in Bitcoin Economy. Imagine that there are 100 000 geniuses not sleeping at night in their garages creating the future of money and you can buy a stake in this "startup" simply by buying bitcoins;
- Payment system;
- Messaging system;
- Accounting system;
- Time stamping system;
- Loads of things that could be built on top of Bitcoin protocol, such as smart contracts/property, for example;
- I might have forgotten something...
First secured distributed database technology. |
|
|
|
Whats exceedingly positive is that this American Banker editor is so positive on bitcoin.
This is his second interview on this.
That's pretty extraordinary.
Yeah ... I noticed American Banker magazine has been out in front of this for quite some time (a year already?). I guess we now know why, this Hochstein guy is switched on. Edit: Just watched it right through, Marc Hochstein is excellent. Very encouraging to hear that the ~7000 SME bankers out there are furious with what is taking place in Washington/NY and they recognise financial privacy as essential to a well functioning economy/society. Hopefully a potential lot of allies in the good fight. |
|
|
|
sunnankar: I don't see bitcoins anywhere on your liquidity pyramid .... |
|
|
|
Of course asking FinCEN or a lawyer will not solve our problems. Let's assume they posted the guidelines as a call for help :-) Let's tell them that we are willing to help :-)
Or you could grow a spine and shape the type of govt. you want ... not let the govt shape you. The Bank Secrecy Act is/was an abomination when it was introduced and has only ever gotten worse with amendments and enforcement. Go to the root of the problem, don't try putting layers of FUD on top of fail. Bitcoin highlights major constitutional weaknesses in both the BSA and the Federal Reserve Act (both written by/for the bankers). Ask your elected legislature to address those issues before asking the enforcement branch to work with unworkable laws ... or you will just get the "War on Alcohol/Drugs/Guns" fiascos all over again, or let's just call it the "War on Money" and get started. FinCEN is not the answer, they are the problem, trying to make money an enforcement tool is compromising money the economic tool. Unless you are okay using inferior monetary systems. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
