Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2024, 02:07:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 »
261  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Contest on: June 05, 2011, 05:11:52 AM
I bought bitcoins at 0 dollars.  Had a friend who fiddled around with it a bit, got fed up with it, and gave me his remaining 8.95 bitcoins (worth about .8 cents at the time) for free.  Does this count? Cheesy
262  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin's Hurdles on: June 05, 2011, 05:09:50 AM
Quantumplation - Thanks for the detailed reply.  It appears the author and perhaps others in the media are not that well informed.  He has three more articles coming out this week on Bitcoin transactions, escrow and exchanges.  We can see if he does a little better on the next articles.

=) No problem.  I'm always trying to help new people out... Sometimes I come off as snarky or confrontational, but that's not my intent, on top of which I have very low tolerance for belligerence and what I call "The throughput" (see: him), an archetype for new people that tends to be really stubborn, poorly spoken, and has very little grasp for the concepts of bitcoin.  Other than that, we'll get along great. Smiley
263  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I love you all. on: June 05, 2011, 05:06:20 AM
I hate being the stupidest one in this community.

"Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind."

Please see this for ego boost.
264  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin's Hurdles on: June 05, 2011, 03:54:38 AM
  I read an article that pointed out several current shortcomings for Bitcoin that need to be overcome:

    Why canít I combine two wallets easily?
    Send bitcoins from Wallet A to Wallet B.  Problem solved.
    Öor partition the one I have?
   Create new wallet.  Send bitcoins from Wallet A to Wallet B.  Problem solved.
    Why canít I subscribe to a service, which may change its pricing enroute (think electricity bill), with just one confirmation action?
    Because it's not implemented in the client, as the client hasn't even hit version 1.0 yet.  It's the network, not the client, that is the clever part.
    Öor create a service that others can subscribe to?
    You can.
    Öand bill them for one-click confirmations?
    Because each person owns and is in charge of his own money.  It's not pull-based, it's push-based.  It's one of the strongest consumerist protections around.
    Why canít I add more bitcoins with a single button in the client and a credit card number?
    Because there's no central authority to do this.  Because noone has an expensive contract with a credit card company.  Because this isn't what bitcoins is about.
    Why canít I create a shared wallet for a workgroup with individual spending limits?
    You can.  Share the wallet.
    Why canít I write server-side code for my WordPress blog that accepts bitcoin?
    You can.
    Why canít I pay with my phone without risking loss of my money through theft or loss of my phone?
    You can.
    Why canít I easily integrate bitcoin acceptance into my commerce website?
    You can.
    Why canít I write server-side code in my organization management program that accepts and sends bitcoin?
    You can.
265  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin and instantaneousness on: June 05, 2011, 03:39:26 AM
The retail seller doesn't wait for confirmations after you swipe your credit card. That takes 3 days!

The retailer gets a confirmed authorization immediately.

That doesn't guarentee they'll get the money though, that guarentees you're approved and under your credit limit.  You can dispute the transaction, and for relatively small amounts the credit company will just give it to you, and the store can't really do anything because taking you to court would be too expensive.  Do it too frequently, though, and your credit card company will start bringing you up on fraud charges.
266  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I love you all. on: June 05, 2011, 03:25:12 AM
Is that your idea of foreplay  Huh

Bitcoin is arousing imo.

See (near the bottom)
267  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 10000 BTC for a pizza? on: June 05, 2011, 02:29:36 AM

I think the offer has been closed now.

Rather, at the time, he said it was a standing offer.  And yes, he has since rescinded this.
268  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I love you all. on: June 05, 2011, 02:28:51 AM
I love all of you, except for some of you.
269  Economy / Economics / Re: The 2040 problem on: June 05, 2011, 02:26:09 AM
This issue hadn't been addressed, please stop saying that.  It's a lie.

If it had been addressed someone would have Provided a sufficient explanation in this thread.  I have yet to see one.
Thus to me this issue is problematic for bit coin.

People assume wrongfully that inflation is bad.   To respect to security, inflation is not only beneficial but necessary.  Otherwise a declining hash will compromise the security of the network.

Please, point out your problems with the issues as I have presented them.  [hypocritical ad hominem]Or did you not read my posts because they were too long and hard to understand? [/hypocritical ad hominem]

270  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 10000 BTC for a pizza? on: June 05, 2011, 01:55:23 AM
I'll go out on a limb and say that anyone wouldn't trade their life's savings for a pizza.  So if he offered 10,000, I'm sure he had 50,000 or more on hand.

I know, and he offered to do it any time. Wink  I was being snarky.
271  Economy / Economics / Re: The 2040 problem on: June 05, 2011, 01:45:19 AM
Just thought of something else:

The kind of people who have the resources for massive bitcoin mining servers are likely to be large financial investment firms.  It is very much in their interest to keep mining, as, essentially, their entire company can perform transactions on the bitcoin network without any fees, as long as it's solved by their own server.  This would be HUGE savings for the firm, likely doing high volume microtrades on thousands of stocks, on top of the income from the fees themselves.  So we've got an example of secondary or tertiary motivational factors.
272  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 10000 BTC for a pizza? on: June 05, 2011, 01:38:02 AM
It was a good deal, since people learned they could buy real items with BTC.

Yea, I honestly think this was a kind of critical moment for the bitcoin economy, and it would have struggled far more than it did without some kind of transaction like this.  It's almost as if laszlo "sacrificed" himself for our future survival...

*starts writing this down.  Hell, it can't be more far fetched than Scientology...*
273  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 10000 BTC for a pizza? on: June 05, 2011, 01:27:22 AM
dear lord those are two 85 grand pizzas  Shocked

180 grand.
274  Economy / Economics / Re: The 2040 problem on: June 05, 2011, 01:25:49 AM

No that's not true.  The claim that if it becomes unprofitable mining will decrease, miners will stop, and it will become profitable again.  That's ok.  It doesn't matter.

The security of the network is determined by hash.  A decrease in mining is a decrease in hash which is a decrease in security.  If hash declines the value of bitcoins will decline.  The hash determined the value of the bitcoin, nothing else.  The hash gives the bitcoin security.

Once hash decreases vale decreases.  The hash has to keep growing for value to icrease.

Your assumption that bitcoin derives it's value solely from security is false.  A large part is the security, yes, but it also derives from:

Convenience.  It's DAMN easy to send someone a bitcoin.
Intrigue. The concept is really clever.
Freedom to property.
Cost. It's a LOT cheaper to send someone internationally 1btc than it is 20 dollars.

If the hash rate decreases (or stagnates), that does not guarantee that someone will be able to overwhelm the network instantaneously.  They still have to ACQUIRE a substantial majority of the networking power.  At the CURRENT volume of miners, that's more than the top 500 supercomputers combined.  In a stable, vast reaching economy, "competition" (I use the word here for lack of a better term, not to imply that block solutions is a race) for the block solutions would be extremely high, and thus there would be several hundred times more computing power devoted to bitcoin.

Transaction fees will more than cover the costs of incentivizing miners, as I outlined above.  What you seem to think is that the value of bitcoins at this point will be extremely fluid:  A TINY decrease in security will cause mass panic and devalue the currency, causing a cascade.   Bitcoins will become stickier than that.  In the same way that you cannot notice a 100w lightbulb among 100 other 100w lightbulb, there's a certain point at which the fluctuation of security in the system is undetectable.  The value of bitcoins will stabilize.  The value of a dollar is not subject to stock-like panic swings, and in the presence of a rich economy, neither will bitcoins.

Similarly, the security of the system as a whole is subject to the same sensory threshold phenomenon.  The difference in security between 100THash/s and 99THash/s is not equivalent to the difference in security from 2THash/s to 1THash/s.  Just because it drops by 1 THash/s in the future doesn't mean it will have the same risks assosciated with dropping by 1THash/s today.

Finally, someone with substantial control of the computational power of the network has only limited attack vectors on the system.  He can claim he did not spend money which he did for limited amounts of time.  The longer in the past he wants to rewrite this "history", the harder it takes, and he can never say that you gave him coins that you did not.  The likely payoff for this in regards to the amount of computing power it would take to compromise a vast system that satoshi envisioned as a stable, worldwide economy would arguably not be worth it.  Seemingly against intuition, and in one of the most beautiful aspects of the bitcoin system, when dealing with the types of resources required to complete these attacks, it's likely more profitable to be honest than it is to be malicious.

I think where your argument comes unstuck is in the assumption that difficulty will decrease if hash rate decrease. and as i understand it ...It doesn't

No, the difficulty would also adjust down.  It's adjusted such that a block is generated roughly every 10 6 10 minutes, ad infinitum. (Woops! hehe) (Woops again!  That's what I get for trusting other people, eh? Wink)
275  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 10000 BTC for a pizza? on: June 05, 2011, 12:32:40 AM
276  Economy / Economics / Re: The 2040 problem on: June 05, 2011, 12:30:44 AM
So much ad hominem it hurts.

Listen, the hashing rate doesn't need to INCREASE to maintain security.  If the hash rate remains constant, the security of the network remains constant.

For the past several months (probably more like the entirety of the project), the reward for mining has been decreasing substantially, due to the difficulty rate increasing.  Higher difficulty, less payout for miners.  This hasn't created a "catastrophe", or you wouldn't be posting on this forum.  In a stable bitcoin economy, the transaction fees for block generation will far outweigh the amount generated by block creation:  100,000 transactions in 10 minutes would mean 500 bitcoins at the new, reduced transaction fee.  And 100,000 is roughly the number of credit card transactions per minute... JUST in the US.  The system was designed to be a _lasting_, _stable_ economy, and has made assumptions as such.  Bitcoin will never reach it's true potential until it becomes one, and that's the goal of the project, so why design it otherwise?

Inflation, on the other hand, is a very real problem, and has caused the outright destruction and mayhem of many massive economies (Germany, Russia, and I'm sure other forum members can provide other examples.)  If bitcoin was not designed to avoid these catastrophes, what would the point of it all be?
277  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should everyone with a computer let the program generate bitcoins? For safty? on: June 04, 2011, 03:10:42 PM
1 extra gpu negates thousands of computers running the generate coin function.  not significant.
1 decent GPU ~ 300 MH/s
1 decent CPU ~ 10 KH/s

We probably don't have the same definition of "thousands".

My cpu gets 10 MHash/s
278  Other / Obsolete (selling) / Re: ATI Radeon HD 5450 - 1.7 BTC on: June 04, 2011, 03:19:29 AM
Give you 2btc for it if you shit internationally and include a note saying "You won a graphics card!" Wink
hahaha crap, yes I do. If it doesn't go over 3 i'll buy it.

279  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Good for miners, bad for business. on: June 04, 2011, 03:15:39 AM
>Make thousands of Bitcoin wallets.
>Print out private keys on material that can stimulate a proper orgasm.
>Build private keys into 'fuckable' apparatus.

280  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A better use for the wasted processing power on: June 04, 2011, 03:14:02 AM
Okay yeah, that makes sense. There needs to be a chain in the current system for it to work.

But say the UK and US governments decide that bitcoins are a threat to the national currency and ban them. Couldn't the existing infrastructure be modified and used as a kind of computational mechanical turk? Miners use their computers to solve problems, they are checked several times and then once verified miners are paid by the people who posed the problem based on the complexity of the problem?

? That would be a digital mechanical turk, not a decentralized currency.  How would you actually make the payments?  The WHOLE point of bitcoin is to create a verifiable history of transactions so that you can prove you own the coins you own.  This problem solving system you propose has nothing to do with that.  Awarding people bitcoins for doing work is COMPLETELY secondary to the main purpose of verifying (I like to picture it as shutting the lock on a clear box that you can look into, but not modify, like a growing matrioshka doll.).  The awards are simply to incentivize people to actually do this verifying, to keep the system stable.  The system could equally have been developed with all coins in existence in the genesis block, and awarded to one person, and the fundamental ability to TRANSFER value through them would remain unchanged (a far more inelegant solution, as satoshi has to spend all the coins for them to get into circulation, and noone has any incentive to run a miner, but the core double-spend prevention would STILL WORK.)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!