|
You understand that insurance is inherently fraudulent, right? It can't exist without force, fraud, and eventual state backing. If you pay for Bitcoin "insurance", the insurer is going to use your payments to set up ways to track you and all of your transactions. You understand that, right?
I mean, people here just got done losing a whole bunch of Bitcoins in a fairly obvious ponzi scheme, so I feel obligated to point this out.
|
|
|
|
|
Does everyone get the same choice? Is it a one time thing, or decided at birth or what?
|
|
|
|
Based on the time-locking idea here. Similar idea here. These would be voluntary "bonds" for all parties. The Bitcoins would never actually be held by a third party. They just would not be spendable for a period of time. The contract would be enforced by the Bitcoin network. Negotiating the contract in a decentralized way should be possible. This would create a market for price stability, at a market rate, for those who are interested. |
|
|
|
what if we could flag certain btc with something like "this cannot be transferred from this address within X period" (able to be changed by the owner)? for example, in a long-term savings situation, this would allow even an unprotected walled, assuming all coins were marked, to be safe for a period of time.
This is an idea for those who think that Bitcoin must either take over the world, or die. It would create the concept of Bitcoin "bonds". You could create a mechanism for individuals who are interested in seeing the exchange value of Bitcoins rise, to pay interest on the bonds. Perhaps, with a sophisticated multisig contract, it could be done in a de-centralized way. It almost doesn't even matter what the interest rate is, since there will be plenty of people who are holding Bitcoins for the long term anyways, and would be happy to lock their Bitcoins in exchange for more in the future. The concept is that Bob pays 1 BTC, and in exchange receives a transaction that time-locks 10000 of Alice's Bitcoins, for a year. At the end of the year, Alice gets 10001 BTC back. I have no doubt there are people who would do this. I wonder whether this is Gavin's "secret idea". It would add stability. It's sophisticated enough to be on his level. And it's fairly obvious based on recent events. |
|
|
|
|
According to the estimates on blockchain.info, the Bitcoin network currently uses as much electricity as about 5 city blocks in Manhattan. This isn't particularly accurate, since the estimate is based on GPU mining. The network is in the process of converting from GPUs to FPGAs and ASICs, which are anywhere from 5-10 times more efficient. I would guess that the real figure is equivalent to approximately 3 city blocks, which is still a lot higher than the historical average. And over the next few months this will settle down to the historical average of being approximately equivalent to one Manhattan city block, or about as much as the Bank of America building. It's important to realize, also, that power usage is not necessarily proportional to the number of users or the number of transactions. So it doesn't necessarily have to increase.
tl;dr: The Bitcoin network historically uses about as much energy as the Bank of America building in New York.
|
|
|
|
|
In a recent interview, Jim Rogers was saying that Myanmar is the greatest investment since sliced bread.
|
|
|
|
If you have a printer, or access to a relatively secure printer, the safest way is to print a paper wallet. CDs don't necessarily last more than a few years, depending on the environment. Go to https://www.bitaddress.org. Click "Paper Wallet". Disconnect your computer from the internet. Click "Generate". Click "Print". Copy and paste the Bitcoin addresses to a text file. Clear your browser cache. Re-connect your internet. Send your Bitcoins to the address(es). Put your paper wallet in a safe place. |
|
|
|
Something tells me a certain washed-up comedy forum is going to be excited when they come across this. |
|
|
|
|
It is puzzling. I'm not sure what to think yet.
|
|
|
|
Low interest rates make it harder to compete? Really? Last time i checked having a lower cost of capital is good thing
You are a danger to yourself and others.
yjacket, please write an essay on the source of "low interest rates," your views on property rights, and the "cost of capital" as sourced via theft. |
|
|
|
The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses.
Never forget this. |
|
|
|
Way more resources than what we have, we need to go to space. To the stars if possible.
Waste of time. There isn't any carbon in space. |
|
|
|
Listen, Etlase2, I have similar concerns. And I have expressed them here, over and over again, from my very first post. But your proposed solutions are laughable. Would it be better if early adopters invested instead of saved? Probably. Will Bitcoin fail if they don't? Perhaps. Does this mean we should re-distribute Bitcoins on a per capita basis? LOL... no. The thing to consider, is that the Bitcoin economy could easily end up being worse off if a bunch of incompetent early adopters were to take your advice, for instance, to invest, and end up giving half a million Bitcoins to a ponzi scammer, in a botched attempt at "investing". So, why not let the market work, instead? Why not allow those who are competent investors to see a rising price as a signal to invest, and let everyone else just hoard in the mean time? That's called rational self-interest. That's called specialization. That's called an 'economy', for christ's sake. I mean, in your economic understanding, do you have absolutely no concept of failure? Is there no consideration for the fact that doing things, even doing beneficial things with the absolute best intentions, could end up making us worse off? When I asked whether you were promoting the labor theory of value, did you even consider the relevance of the question to your arguments? Regardless, these are the facts: - Bitcoin rewards early adopters, because it needs to attract users.
- Bitcoin subsidizes mining, which is consumption, because it needs protection.
- The total Bitcoin supply is limited, because it needs to have economic value.
- This supply currently inflates at 30%+ per year, and therefore does not even remotely subsidize savings.
- Despite everything, the Bitcoin economy is still growing.
If you want to argue any of these, go right ahead. That would at least be a discussion grounded in reality. But I think, by now, we all understand the reasons for all of them, and they have been discussed to death. |
|
|
|
Doing nothing to get something.
Are you really arguing for labor theory of value? Doing nothing is quite productive sometimes. Thanks to decades of Keynesian mal-investment, now is one of them. Your problem seems to be that you are looking at the price of Bitcoins going up and you see the Bitcoin economy "doing nothing" and you mistakenly assume that this is somehow a fraud. When, in reality, Bitcoin is going up in value because doing nothing is actually more productive than what most fiat currency economies are doing right now. |
|
|
|
|
ITT stuff white people like
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
