I strongly believe that somewhere in near future mBTC / XBT should go mainstream. May be I am completely wrong, but I couldn't differentiate between Bitcoin starting to use subunits and a country printing more fiat money. Let's say Bitcoin starts to use mBTC, now there are suddenly 1000x units. When a country prints more money then why not think it as a way of making units more fungible. You bought a candy for a cent then you pay a dollar now. That means, your country has printed 100 times more money or something interesting happened to candy production or your country has gained much reputation or your country is manipulating global exchange rates, etc. Everything somehow looks the same for me. I'm an average Bitcoin user, explain to me.  XBT is the ISO friendly version of BTC, thus 1 XBT = 1 BTC (not a millibitcoin, mB, or a microbitcoin or 0.0001 bitcion). Switching from using BTC to mB is like a stock split as opposed to printing more currency which is like a stock sale. In a stock split, anybody who was holding 1 share of stock worth $100 now owns 10 shares of stock worth $10, so the total worth of their holdings is unchanged. So if I am holding 1.000 bitcoins which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and I switch to using mB, now I have 1000 mB which can buy me 100 loafs of bread, the value I am holding remains constant. Compare this to printing new currency, if my 1 GovCoin can buy me 100 loafs of bread, and then the government doubles the number of GovCoins overnight now I can only buy 50 loafs of bread. |
|
|
|
The first blocks of goldcoin has 10k I believe.
From the linked thread: "2.5 minute block targets Block rewards in order: 200 Block @ 10000 GLD 2000 Blocks @ 1000 GLD Remaining blocks @ 500 GLD" so for about 8 hours people were getting 10000 GLD per block. Then the next 3.5 days people got 1000 GLD. Now people only get 500. So in the first 4 days over 4 million were mined, and then 288000 are mined each day thereafter. |
|
|
|
GLD coin is looking good, mining going well, market price stabilized, don't listen to the haters, this coin is going places. The opinion of those on this board and what they think is legit, premined, or a coin with a future whatever means nothing.
This coin has a name, and a large community - other coins not so much.
Right, so, the fact that the crypto community hates this coin means nothing. Idiot. Bunch of crypto dorks and their mining rigs and tech know how mean nothing. Investors and real world use is all that counts. Sooner trolls like you realize that, the better. I have the ear of some friends at CME, who may invest some money in GLD. These people make more in a day than you make in a year. Guys who make millions upon millions in S&P and Eurodollar (nothing to do with the Euro) futures yearly if not monthly. People like you who troll these boards, with lint in your pockets, have no idea what money is, and have no idea what a few big investors can do for a coin. And this is pocket change to these people. Great, another one who doesn't know how crypto works. Listen carefully, genius. If there are no miners, there are no blocks found. If no blocks are found. If there are no blocks found, there are no confirmations. If there are no confirmations, there are no completed transaction. You get were this is going? With out those Crypto dorks and their mining rigs, you can't send your coins anywhere. I'd say that makes them pretty fucking important to the value of your shitty coin. Because difficulty is adjusted, it only takes a couple miners to run the whole network. Without people using the coin mining is useless and a waste of energy. Therefore, it is the users and not the miners that is ultimately important. |
|
|
|
Why such a high number per block? And why do the first few blocks have massive rewards? That is not constant! |
|
|
|
Hi,
Why every 5 minutes we see two new coins... We have to learn from Linux project ... 100 distribution but only one or two are working well...
So think before to develop a new shit coins... x coins, y coins.... to not said other name...
I think we have to support max 5 coins and leave those stupid coins go away...
Thanks
Alright, lets pick a couple that are worth keeping: Bitcoin (the original) Namecoin (has utility as distributed DNS) Litecoin (uses a different algorithm than bitcoins, there is some traction (places to actually use it)) Ripples (totally different algorithms, useful currently for using Ripple, but may be made obsolete if an XRP-less clone of Ripple can be made) |
|
|
|
|
I really do not feel like looking through every single alt-coin, but I was wondering if any has yet been made which copies bitcoin without the reward dropping over time? This is like the biggest thing people say is bad with bitcoins, that the block reward changes over time, but it seems like every coin I look at has the exact same release schedule baked in, the block reward halving every X number of blocks?
|
|
|
|
giving an address over the phone is almost impossible.
If I knew I had to tell someone an address over the phone, I'd first hit up btc.to or pay.btc with some easy to remember (and vocalize) link. Firstbits would be great for this. I can't get to either of those sites right now - payb.tc has apparently expired and firstbits.com timed out. |
|
|
|
|
The sky is falling!
There was a massive EMP set off by nefarious government agents designed to destroy the bitcoin network. Clearly they have failed.
Buy, Buy, Buy!
|
|
|
|
|
Adding to signature now...
1Nk33QxqyEWuQWFUQzQtYjkgRxp5yZouHa
|
|
|
|
What is the pH of a 10^-9 M solution of HCl?
In water? About 7. To get more accurate than that would depend on the temperature and amounts of trace impurities like the carbonic acid that forms from the CO2 in the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
100 BTC could take care of the full money supply of an entire country if it got popular enough. Easily.
Please give a thoughtful answer, you did not answer what would happen after btc supply stopped expanding, yes price would rise, btc would become divisible and only a few would have whole btc. What stops the economy from becoming lopsidedly deflationary? We don't need to stop that. Seeing as we'll hit the cap over a hundred years in the future, likely by then Gaven will have put in a change to sort this problem out(ex. adding 8 more decimal places) or Bitcoin will be overthrown and replaced with something better. Hey, will any of us live to see a single Satoshi having accountable value? This is what I don't get from the general proponents of BTC why do you think adding more decimal places will solve the problem? That is not increasing supply. This will have no effect on fixing the issue. It's like saying I want to buy an apple with $1 usd, but it will be cheaper if i use miniUsd which is $0.5 usd instead. Seems as though everyone is on the same page by saying hey we will just add more decimal places, yet I have not had a simple explanation as to how this would solve the problem. Think of the demand supply curve. Nobody complains about million dollars being too expensive. They just use dollars instead. If the price of bitcoins goes up to 1000000 dollars, only idiots will complain that they are too expensive, the rest of us will just price things in uB (microbits) instead. I don't think you have clearly defined what "the problem" is. The divisibility of bitcoins solves the granularity problem that would happen if bitcoins were deflationary but not divisible. Sort of like what has happened with gold - try going to a store and buying an apple with gold, what are you going to do give the clerk a couple flecks? The underlying "problem" of having a deflationary currency is unrelated to the divisibility issue. Look through these forums, there are plenty of discussions on why deflation is not necessarily a problem. |
|
|
|
Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money. He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin. Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.
+1 Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve? Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy? The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread. We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction. You divide bitcoins down to 8 decimal points and you will see people starving, holding off for a cheaper loaf of bread That makes no sense. Bitcoins are already divided down to 8 decimal places. Anybody starving because they are hoping their bitcoins will go up in value is an idiot. Food today is worth more than the possibility of food tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Once upon a time, there was a guy that didn't understand the difference between physical goods with mass, and abstract money. He wrote a story comparing bread to bitcoin. Sadly, everyone laughed at him, because each tiny little bit of bread can only be consumed once, so the whole loaf has only a fixed amount of sustaining power, no matter how divided, while money circulates to be used over and over again without ever being consumed.
+1 Is the OP saying the problem lies in the fact that one man has 10 bread while the rest of the village lives on 1 bread, so the inequality is killing them? Or is he saying that there are 10 breads, which clearly is not enough to feed the 1000's of people, so no matter how they cut it they are going to starve? Are we complaining about how the early adopters have too many coins, or that the money supply of bitocins is only like a billion dollars, which is clearly too small for a global economy? The obvious solution to the OP's story is to printbake more bread. We don't have to print more bitcoins because they can just expand to fill the needs of the economy. That might mean the USD value of a single Bitcoin will go up a few orders of magnitude, but that is okay because we can divide bitcoins down eight decimal places. See, the divisibility is the solution after all, you just have to look at it the right direction. |
|
|
|
I will donate to you just for providing this service to us. It won't be much, but hey, this stuff doesnt exactly come free (college is expensive!). Thanks for your service!
Thanks for the good word Bump for anybody interested? |
|
|
|
I delete a lot of 'this' and '+1' posts lately. A banhammer is not really justified here as the user may not be aware that this is a bad way of behaving. If they go around and quote posts without really adding content, the banhammer is in place. Didn't we change the forum policy a while back to outlaw '+1' posts? This would not be a problem if people did not put so much stock in forum post count as a method of judging other people. The trust system might help with that. It might also be beneficial to take the forum post counter off peoples' posts. Have the post count visible by looking at the profile, but there is no reason it needs to be right there with the user's name on every single post they make, that makes it seem like the post count is part of their identity. |
|
|
|
prevents conversations to be taken out of context(by making it necessary to read an entire thread to understand the flow of the conversation.
how exactly does removing nested quotes add more context? if anything, it reduces context and forces users to guess what each other is talking about. it forces them to read the thread, instead of just the quoted block of text But many times there are multiple sub-threads going on at once. It is nice to have all the relevant quotes right in one place so everybody can keep track of who said what. Also, it is easy enough to quote and delete out the layers of quotes you don't want. Takes like 3 seconds when you make your posts. -1 (or should I say +1?) errr, I agree with Tysat, BadBear and Peter, having nested quotes is good. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is backed by:
Distributed trust
Ease of transactions
Hardcoded rarity
Trust is fickle, and as the Pirate fiasco (and all the people who had lent money to him) showed, trust can fail and ripple through the whole economy. Bitcoins are easy if the sender and receiver already have set up bitcoin accounts and you have a way to copy-paste the address. Trying to get one of the parties set up is difficult and giving an address over the phone is almost impossible. The base money supply of bitcoins is hardcoded to a certain level, but credit monies can be built on top of it, like by using ripple to exchange BTC. |
|
|
|
Bitcoins would be able to maintain a price if there was an actual economy utilizing them. I have not been impressed by any of the sites selling stuff for bitcoins, most are very unprofessional. There is still much growing to do to have bitcoin be a viable currency.
I don't think there really needs to be an "economy" built around bitcoin for it to continue rising. There are clearly use cases already in place, like how S.MG on MPEx just raised the equivalent of a million dollars in their IPO. Bitcoin can do just fine serving the tech savvy and the financiers of the world. You just said that bitcoins will rise because *everybody* is going to be using them, and now you are saying they will keep going up if it is just the smart and rich who use them? |
|
|
|
Okay, I was just thinking about bitcoins and how amazing they are. Then I realized that it is inevitable for the price of bitcoins to go up over time, because as each person decides they will accept bitcoins the overall network effect increases. As the population of the world is increasing, so too must the price of bitcoins. I look forward to the amazing world we will build together using this wonderful technology.
You must be crazy. There is no assurance that as people learn about bitcoin they will actually start using it. For many people bitcoins are just too hard to use. It seems like there are plenty of people who get all gung-ho for a little bit, but then they get bored and leave bitcoins behind. Bitcoins are inflating at over 10% a year right now, clearly the price is going to go down in the short term.
...As two are one, so am I!   Oh, Hi other Bitcoin Bear, it is nice to see another bear around here You must be crazy. There is no assurance that as people learn about bitcoin they will actually start using it. For many people bitcoins are just too hard to use. It seems like there are plenty of people who get all gung-ho for a little bit, but then they get bored and leave bitcoins behind. Bitcoins are inflating at over 10% a year right now, clearly the price is going to go down in the short term.
Bitcoin is like a drug, once you get a taste you can't give it up. I admit once you hear of bitcoins you cannot unlearn of them, but that does not mean that everybody who looks into bitcoins will continue using them forever. There will be some drop off once the new people have spent all their disposable income and the older users start cashing out to live their life of luxury. Bitcoins would be able to maintain a price if there was an actual economy utilizing them. I have not been impressed by any of the sites selling stuff for bitcoins, most are very unprofessional. There is still much growing to do to have bitcoin be a viable currency. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
