You are comparing the risk of a 51% attack with the counterparty risk? That is insane! A 51% attack is now pretty unlikely while someone NOT PAYING (counterparty risk) is a huge risk. People fail on debts ALL THE TIME.
Actually, the comparison between these risks is not as simple as you make it seem, especially because you have to take into account not just the probability of the risk occurring but also the magnitude of the damage if it does. But all I was doing was disputing the claim that Bitcoin is zero risk. You can make it seem like a complex comparison but it is not. NOTHING is ZERO risk. Not even the USD that most people buy BTC or settle Ripple with. And the magnitude of the damage if USD fails is a lot bigger then bitcoin failing. For our purposes, the risk of using Bitcoin is pretty low. 99.999% of the time or more the payment will go through. I do not think the odds of getting paid back in ripple are nearly as high. |
|
|
|
Was just looking at the other threads in the Bitcoin Discussion board. And what do I see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147742.0It looks like another off-chain service. And it sells itself with the fact that it is quick and cheap. Hopefully you people will begin to realise that off-chain transactions are going to be very popular and it is a real threat to bitcoin. Maybe bitcoin will fail even before DRM coin arrives. So remember people, everytime you transfer money off-chain your not paying fees to the poor miners. So do the right thing and make a voluntary donation to a miner today! (the above is sarcasm if you don't realise) There have been a few off-chain services before. They have not taken away many transactions from the chain. In reality, it seems like many of them go under. They fail to get business because on chain transactions are properly priced. And this goes back to the same issue you have FAILED TO ANSWER in multiple replies.
TRUST To use a service like them you need to TRUST them to handle your money for you. Or you can use the blockchain and just trust in MATH. |
|
|
|
I'm certainly not spending my bitcoins on keychains or anything like that right now. And anyone with half a brain probably isn't either. What IS worth spending your Bitcoins on?
Cocaine. I would imagine that people would hord bitcoins MORE as the price is rising but people are spending more in my store now then they did when the price was lower. Why? Because it takes LESS bitcoins to buy things now. I sold a ton of my polo shirts when they were 4 bitcoins each but now priced in BTC they are less then 1 BTC. A sticker from me shipped is 45 mBTC! People are spending more now in USD terms then when the price was lower. |
|
|
|
|
rLiS5aNwoMWBxdurx5LHAME8PFrge2F3GN
|
|
|
|
I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.
It's not zero risk. There's a risk that a 51% attack will devalue the currency. There's a risk that a speculative bubble will collapse and devalue the currency. There's a risk that Bitcoin will collapse and leave you holding something that's worthless. These aren't high risks, of course, and it may make perfect sense to take them. But it's not zero risk. Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ? No, that's a misunderstanding of how Ripple works. You can only lose money if someone you chose to trust betrays that trust. Other people defaulting cannot harm you. To use a check analogy, say you pay your landlord with a $400 check. He deposits that check in his bank. Now your bank owes you $400 less and his bank owes him $400 more. So he considers you to have paid him $400. But if his bank collapses, that doesn't harm you. He chose to trust his bank and his bank accepted the check. It's only if your bank collapses that you may be out money. You gave him a $400 check that was acceptable to a bank he chose to trust. That ends your end of the bargain. Him getting the $400 from the bank that he chose to trust is his problem. And, of course, my bank paying his bank is his bank's problem, not mine or his. If his bank agreed to accept checks from my bank, then if that goes wrong that's their problem. You are comparing the risk of a 51% attack with the counterparty risk? That is insane! A 51% attack is now pretty unlikely while someone NOT PAYING (counterparty risk) is a huge risk. People fail on debts ALL THE TIME. |
|
|
|
From wiki disambiguation, also known as the White House besides the one in Washington:
In the United States:
White House (Casa Grande, Arizona), listed on the NRHP in Pinal County
White House (Helena, Arkansas), listed on the NRHP in Phillips County
White House (Christianburg, Kentucky), listed on the NRHP in Shelby County
White House (Syracuse, New York), listed on the NRHP in Onondaga County
White House (Huntsville, North Carolina), listed on the NRHP in Yadkin County
White House of the Chickasaws, Emet, Oklahoma, listed on the NRHP in Johnston County
White House (Rock Hill, South Carolina), listed on the NRHP in York County
White House (Bastrop, Texas), listed on the NRHP in Bastrop County
White House (Brentsville, Virginia), listed on the NRHP in Prince William County
White House (plantation), near White House, Virginia, home of Martha Custis prior to her marriage to George Washington
I'm talking THE WHITE HOUSE and its a number for a war room. And again, all of those listed are considered THE WHITE HOUSE. There are many ones outside of the USA as well that are called the "THE WHITE HOUSE" |
|
|
|
For the same Bitcoin Megastore is offering but with bitcoins as well as fiat currencies payment, I think we'll have to wait for a very long time.
I have checked not only with CafePress but Zazzle, Spreadshirt and few more Print-On-Demand services, and none of them seems interested
in allowing bitcoins as payment method.
I think it depends what where your and attitude efforts in trying to encourage to accept BTC as a payment I'll put it differently. Complete store was closed few days ago because one of the people checking the content uploaded was and is strongly against Bitcoin (not actualy having a clue what it really is). Once situation was cleared (luckily, there are CafePress people able to listen and reason), due to few bugs on CafePress side I lost over a day* to restore everything to current status. The last thing I need right now, after shop is announced to Bitcoin community, is store closed again because of me weaving the Bitcoin flag around CafePress staff. Few guys there seem to be properly informed about Bitcoin so I'll opt for just letting time do the neccessary work. So if we patronize your store we are supporting a business with people strongly against bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
From wiki disambiguation, also known as the White House besides the one in Washington:
In the United States:
White House (Casa Grande, Arizona), listed on the NRHP in Pinal County
White House (Helena, Arkansas), listed on the NRHP in Phillips County
White House (Christianburg, Kentucky), listed on the NRHP in Shelby County
White House (Syracuse, New York), listed on the NRHP in Onondaga County
White House (Huntsville, North Carolina), listed on the NRHP in Yadkin County
White House of the Chickasaws, Emet, Oklahoma, listed on the NRHP in Johnston County
White House (Rock Hill, South Carolina), listed on the NRHP in York County
White House (Bastrop, Texas), listed on the NRHP in Bastrop County
White House (Brentsville, Virginia), listed on the NRHP in Prince William County
White House (plantation), near White House, Virginia, home of Martha Custis prior to her marriage to George Washington
|
|
|
|
Please explain to be why this is not considered the major problem with bitcoin and why it is not discussed on this forum.
Because it will not happen. The possibility of off block chain transactions is a FEATURE not a problem. While most transactions are on the blockchain, you can (with less security) trade off the blockchain as well. You may gain speed, low transaction costs or novelty but you give up SECURITY. Because you give up something, the blockchain will still be the choice for most transactions. Using the blockchain avoids needing to rely on trusting ANYONE. In person transactions rely on trusting SOMEONE. That someone may be the person you are trading with (by using open private keys), the maker of a system like Casascius coins or some horrible DRM system that you talk about. You will have to trust someone. With the blockchain all you have to do is trust in MATH. I trust math. Do you? I do trust in math. Indeed it is the SAME type of math (crypto) that makes DRM secure that bitcoin uses. False analogies are false. And you did NOT AT ALL answer the issue of TRUST. Bitcoin is open and known. You only need to trust math as I said before. With your DRM scheme you need to trust: 1) the DRM maker 2) the DRM scheme itself 3) trusted computing and code signing 4) Microsoft Each one of these is a point of failure. And while you need only ONE to be broken to render your DRMcoin to be broken and useless, EVERY one of them has been broken before. Go ahead, trust DRM. |
|
|
|
Please explain to be why this is not considered the major problem with bitcoin and why it is not discussed on this forum.
Because it will not happen. The possibility of off block chain transactions is a FEATURE not a problem. While most transactions are on the blockchain, you can (with less security) trade off the blockchain as well. You may gain speed, low transaction costs or novelty but you give up SECURITY. Because you give up something, the blockchain will still be the choice for most transactions. Using the blockchain avoids needing to rely on trusting ANYONE. In person transactions rely on trusting SOMEONE. That someone may be the person you are trading with (by using open private keys), the maker of a system like Casascius coins or some horrible DRM system that you talk about. You will have to trust someone. With the blockchain all you have to do is trust in MATH. I trust math. Do you? |
|
|
|
They seem to really like The Undertaker! From the list: "Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame The Undertaker Wrestlewar 1990 The Undertaker WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker WrestleMania XXVII The Undertaker WrestleMania XXVI The Undertaker WrestleMania XXV The Undertaker WrestleMania XXIV The Undertaker WrestleMania XX The Undertaker WrestleMania XV The Undertaker WrestleMania X-Seven The Undertaker WrestleMania XIX The Undertaker WrestleMania XIV The Undertaker WrestleMania XII The Undertaker WrestleMania XI The Undertaker WrestleMania X8 The Undertaker WrestleMania VIII The Undertaker WrestleMania VII The Undertaker WrestleMania IX The Undertaker WrestleMania 23 The Undertaker WrestleMania 22 The Undertaker WrestleMania 21 The Undertaker WrestleMania 13 The Undertaker WrestleMania The Undertaker Professional wrestling throws The Undertaker Professional wrestling match types The Undertaker Professional wrestling holds The Undertaker Professional wrestling booker The Undertaker Professional wrestling attacks The Undertaker Professional wrestling aerial techniques The Undertaker Professional wrestling The Undertaker" |
|
|
|
if there will halving then bitcoin will still here. If bitcoin will exist then it will still raising above $8000 :-) And about 100M users adopted.
I will throw out a guess of $700 for the next halving. Just wild speculation. |
|
|
|
|
The sequestration will slow the rise of the debt so it will slow inflation but probably not enough to be seen. If it could be seen, it would decrease the speed at which bitcoin increased in value. Unless sequestration really screws the economy little difference will be seen.
In Europe recently and in Great Britain in the past, things like sequestration during bad economic times have NOT helped the economy.
|
|
|
|
It's only $85 billion over a year. The fed prints that in only one month.
Printing de-values the currency of course and even de-values the debt hurting dept holders and savers alike. So printing does not send the US closer to collapse and neither does the sequestration. What does hurt the US is more debt. |
|
|
|
Amusing. Though, I'd rather knock off anyone with any sort of political bullshit on their vehicle, and add back as necessary, being a bit more careful this time...
Car based discrimination.  Maybe not allow foreign car owners. Or people with RED cars, they may be dangerous. Or people with high mpg cars, they may be of a certain political persuasion. Or people with low mpg cars, they may be wasteful with office supplies. Or people with fart cans..... OK, THAT IS A GOOD IDEA. |
|
|
|
|
So it is possible to trade bitcoin off the blockchain in a similar way that cash is traded outside of banks. Guess that is gonna KILL the US dollar banking industry because banks can not profit off of every transaction.
This is not a flaw, it is a feature. It gives bitcoin a mode of transfer OFFLINE as well as ONLINE making bitcoin that much more flexible.
Could off blockchain transactions kill bitcoin? No. They need to be done in person and MOST bitcoin transactions need to be done online. If you want to visit SatoshiDice in person and play (if they allowed that) FINE, but that will not cut into the blockchain version of that business. The blockchain will have plenty of customers.
|
|
|
|
|
Buying makes more sense unless you think you can get an ASIC faster then everyone else.
|
|
|
|
With the exchange rate now at record highs, mBTC is looking like a serious way to quote a transaction. I just added one of my 49 cent stickers to the card and with shipping it is $1.48. That in BTC is about 0.021 BTC! Last year sites were giving away .01 each day for visiting. Shipping price is for US addresses only. http://cryptoanarchy.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=57 |
|
|
|
|
Also stupid. Almost certainly would hurt a company more then it would help if it were really done that way.
Having higher taxes is not a good thing though so far only employees have been saddled with higher taxes post election.
If you DID have higher taxes raising prices would be the first line of defense as your competition most probably would have higher taxes too and would also feel the squeeze. If that was not in the cards then you would look for your LEAST PRODUCTIVE employees not employees at random. If you cut people by bumper stickers, you would end up with needed positions empty and when it came time to re-hire you would probably be facing lawsuits from the original employees if they found out.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
