...
Because side chains would be hard pegged and linked at the protocol level to Bitcoin. Eventually with the above solution peeps will go " so why we using Bitcoin?" And then uh oh.
Something tells me it would be more like Bitcoin transaction does not confirm or takes days to confirm or is very expensive to confirm. And then uh oh. |
|
|
|
Edit: The key is that USD cannot be both digital and private at the same time.
I hear you, but by your rules *nothing* can be digital and private at the same time, because simply by moving through a 'trusted third party' privacy is broken. I am arguing that the digital dollar is "private for all intents and purposes" with a disclaimer that nothing that isn't decentralized can ever truly be private, because it must pass through a trusted third party who can spy on you if they like. But for most of the population they are used to thinking of their dollars as private, and in some respects they are more private than bitcoin which has a totally public ledger. But as I said, I agree that digital dollars are never truly private (nor is any asset stored by a trusted third party). I think the comparison holds as long as you make that very clear. Fungibility rather than privacy is the more critical issue here, unless the trusted third party creates a bearer and digital USD instrument. This however will likely run afoul of AML/KNC laws and regulations, so most digital USD instruments are not fungible and by my strict definition not private. Monero on the other hand is digital, private, fungible and legal! I know some would say that bitUSD would qualify digital, private, fungible and legal but bitUSD is dependent on the BTS/USD rate staying above a certain threshold for the peg to hold. |
|
|
|
They shouldn't. I hope they don't. We need freedom. Of course, countries will try to support taxes and enforce them, but it's mostly impossible for the most part...
Income tax collection for the most part relies on voluntary compliance and information provided by disgruntled fomer partners, business partners, competitors, spouses, neighbours, employees etc. In the 1960s the top marginal tax rates were in the high 90th percentile in many western countries. At the same time most transactions were anonymous cash. It is a myth that one needs to track every transaction in order to collect income taxes. Edit: History has proven that income tax collection is perfectly compatible with financial freedom. |
|
|
|
|
The digital dollar is digital but not private. It is also not decentralized.
The paper cash dollar is private but not digital. One can argue it is decentralized because once it is issued the US Government has no control over its use.
Just ask someone in Greece what the difference is between cash "in the bank" (digital Euros) and cash "in you pocket" (paper Euros).
I would put the US Dollar bill in the private alone or private / decentralized category, and the digital representation of USD in the digital alone category.
Edit: The key is that USD cannot be both digital and private at the same time.
|
|
|
|
The quote in this tweet will please many of you. I asked Peter Todd for permission to use it, so feel free to retweet. https://twitter.com/XMRpromotions/status/664123851299667968edit: Wow that was quick. Shapeshift already retweeted me! edit #2: I apologize in advance for not tweeting @xmr_to this time. My excuse is the 140 character limitation It is called cross chain mixing of Bitcoin using Monero in order to make Bitcoin private and fungible. I have argued that for this reason Monero will not replace Bitcoin on privacy / fungibility alone. Blocksize is another issue altogether. |
|
|
|
I have to admit i have not and i am surprised anyone has (claimed it on their tax return)
But i pretty much heard about my tax guidelines as i quit doing this stuff (trading)
So i don't know if i am potentially liable / in trouble possibly for not making claims.
If they came knocking at my door that would be my excuse anyway LOL
I would suggest talking with a tax professional and making peace with the CRA. Edit: I am not a tax professional, My take: You are liable and your excuse will not work. |
|
|
|
|
Sure both Bitcoin and Dash just forked. I suspect some kind of shorting ala Gox.Voted: Dead/Gox.
|
|
|
|
|
I would split the dollar into two very different types of money.
1) Cash
2) Debits and credits on a database held by "trusted" third parties. This includes bank accounts, credit / debit cards, funds on deposit with an exchange such as Mt Gox or Cryptsy etc.
2) Of course can also apply to the other forms of money in the diagram such as Bitcoin, Monero and gold.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is taxable. Tell me about it. I voted yes by the way.
Mining is basically income. Disposition (sale) can be taxed as capital gains or income depending on the circumstances. Also when digital currency is used to buy goods or services there can be a capital loss or gain that needs to be reported.
Edit: The above is for Canada
|
|
|
|
we also know moore's law is decelerating.
but for the sake of a sound argument lets cut the crap with the analogies already please.
“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” ― Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) Here are some more quotes. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it |
|
|
|
...
To follow your analogy consider that miners are dealing with 640KB RAM boxes while typical nodes still uses 80 bytes punched cards.
That was the situation in 1950 when the Diner's Club Credit card first came out. For that reason it could only be used a very small very wealthy portion of the population. The critical mistake that Diner's club made is that for the most part they stayed with their 1950s business model so by 2013 they accounted for a mere 0.2% of the credit card market share. http://www.nilsonreport.com/publication_special_feature_article.php. The bank networks VISA and Mastercard started in the late 1960s and early 1970s and saw the mass market potential of credit cards with the advent of the mainframe computer. In the 1990s we saw even wider use of digital payments with debit cards then networks such as PayPal etc. These were each only made possible by further advances in technology. Yet is all of these cases the concept comes back to the original Diner's Club credit card of 1950. The problem with the small block fans is that they want to bake 5 year old technology into the Bitcoin protocol forever effectively turning Bitcoin into the Diner's Club of crypto-currency. There are alt-coins already that have adaptive blocksize limits for those that care to look in the alt-coin section. These coins have this problem solved. The issue in my mind is not whether individuals will be using crypto currency to pay for coffee and store the corresponding blockchain in its entirety on their devices or computers. They will. Technology will see to that. The real issue here is will be they use Bitcoin or some other crypto currency to do so. In short who will be the Diner's Club of crypto-currency and who will be the VISA of crypto-currency. Edit: When one is old enough to have transferred data from punched cards to 5.25 in floppies, I have. One understands that technology simply does not stand still. |
|
|
|
...
That's not even possible at 8 gigabyte blocks, some off-chain solution is needed no matter what. So it's the best place to start. Blocksize is basically the last scaling factor that needs adjusting, not the first.
True moving from 1 MB (the present situation) to 8 GB (Bitcoin XT / BIP 101) is like moving from punched cards 80 bytes each to computers with 640 KB of RAM and two floppy drives. (The infamous Bill Gates limit). Now who says we have to stay at 640 KB of RAM for ever. Baking these kinds of limits into the Bitcoin protocol is fundamentally wrong. The proper solution here is to have market driven adaptive blocksize limits. Edit: Now that we have moved from the 1950s to the 1980s we still have a way to go. |
|
|
|
I'm no fan of cryptsy lately, but could it be that they are just understaffed and overwhelmed? Both on support and actual maintenance?
One can deal with the above account in its entirety with the way less effort than dribbling out small amounts of XBT and DASH. |
|
|
|
Update on my attempts to withdraw my balance of approx 70 BTC & 900 DASH from Cryptsy: New day & my second 3.4 BTC W/D has been sent, still waiting on 300 DASH and heard nothing from Cryptsy about when they will make me Tier 3 and if they need any additional info from what I'd already sent to be fully verified in the past for this, so that I can W/D the rest of my now 66 BTC. It says "Show Withdraw Limit $-559.5796975" so apparently I have a negative W/D limit atm, they are well aware of the Reddit thread but choose not to come on there and explain themselves, they continue to fail to communicate with me even though according to their support JShock on the chat I am the number one W/D priority to solve. Edit to add: When I tried to post this in their chat it now appears that overnight when afk and not posting on it for 12 hours, that I've been permanently banned from posting there.  Until the above is fully resolved I would not even consider trusting Cryptsy with 0.000000000001 XMR. I do hope Otoh gets his XBT and DASH back. This is not the first time that I have seen AML/KNC used as an excuse to hide insolvency and / or fraud. By the way ever wondered why the bulk of DASH/XBT trading has moved from Cryptsy to Poloniex? |
|
|
|
...
Let the freeloaders drop Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin manages to attract the wealthiest of pockets and those that care about true censorship resistance & decentralization then we can consider it a success and a foundation on top of which the next financial system can be built.
So we keep Bitcoin just for the 0.001% just like credit cards in the 1950s, since we must not upgrade our technology from punched cards and telegraph lines. |
|
|
|
... I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks. Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive? And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption.  This is just basic economics. The fees will first rise sharply, then 33% of users will drop Bitcoin, some will move to (an)other crypto-currency(ies) with adaptive blocksize limits, some will move to the legacy banking system etc. Yes this could very well be the end of Bitcoin but not for distributed blockchain based crypto-currencies. Now we see why Gavin is so desperate about his fork. He cares about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...
Is that what Blockstream has decided bitcoin should be?
Because that's not the original plan...
...
Sad but true. Lets us turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer between banks by keeping the blocksize at 1 MB. We then sell it as de-centralization. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).
Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).
What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).
So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).
This is a very valid point. It can be addressed by supporting the "only-bigblocks" branch of Bitcoin XT or if one prefers fork it and call it something else. There is a lot of controversial and needless baggage added to Bitcoin XT that only serves to confuse the debate. When it comes to the blocksize issue the "only-bigblocks" branch of Bitcoin XT is the best of the interim solutions that have been proposed. I have not seen a good permanent solution to the blocksize issue. Furthermore the hard fork in Bitcoin XT only applies to the blocksize. The "baggage" can be added or removed without a hard fork. |
|
|
|
Refresh my memory. What are the goal posts for a 0.9 release vs. a 1.0 release?
Will we see the fabled "four" core libraries of Monero form in the 0.9 release making wiring up the GUI after that trivial? Or will 0.9 just pave the way for us to finally realize those four major sections of competency.
I wish there were some way to see a *very* broad overview of the software goals, and then be able to explore down into more and more detail as I wish to learn more.
From the design and development goals, https://getmonero.org/design-goals/ I would say everything under "Recently Completed" for 0.9. Edit: That will not include Libraryize (core / account / consensus / RPC) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
