Cara é um projeto brasileiro, vamos tentar acreditar um pouco!
Dio mio! Produto Brasileiro precisa de crenca para funcionar? Ah ah ah. Este e o verdadeiro conto do vigario! |
|
|
|
At this point, without any evidence about John's ID, it is very likely he was just a fictional character. His reputation solely came from his administrator/global moderator status, not from his established identity. So people trusted countless amount of funds to a person which could be just one more sock puppet among others. Keep in mind that Michael (a.k.a. Theymos) provided support to John as much he provided support to Tradefortress.
Why would he send the forums coins back when requested if he was going to do a runner? Perhaps he decided that he was half honest, so he made "a runner" with half of the stash. The point is, if he was a good escrow agent, why do not have a person of trust to manage his business in case of his absence? |
|
|
|
As an actual vendor who accepts bitcoins, this fiasco is tremendous fun.
Cash doesn't bring the drama like bitcoins
Good point. I think people generally like to pay for products/services without dramas. |
|
|
|
No one in his sane mind will devote "mining" for the sake of the Bitcoin network. It is a cost intensive operation and without a prospect of profit it is meaningless. They will get the mining revenue. If you accept that some people will mine for profit, surely it makes sense that others will mine for profit and to help secure the network? The only purpose of "mining" is to earn BTC. Help and secure the network is just a consequence of this purpose. Therefore you are right, everyone which "mine" could help the network. However, it is not the number of "miners" which have an impact on the security, but the hash rate which one controls to compete with each other. When business compete with each other, they will have to manage costs to operate the "mining" equipment. The whole operation is a liability and thus the need to be compensated with revenue. To increase revenue the "miner" will have to sell BTC in a volatile exchange market. However, as more "miners" compete with each other, more the liability increases. To increase the revenue, the "miner" will have to buy more equipment. But more equipment, more liability. The revenue generated by the equipment do not depend on the BTC obtained, but in how much it worth in the exchange markets. So as long the price of BTC in fiat money increases in proportion with the generated BTC, the liability could cover the revenue. If the liability is not compensated by the revenue, then game over. That is not good business. Moreover, others are already in control of a big chunk of the network. So "mining" is not going to mitigate any risk because the final cost for the sellers are going to be higher than the expected benefit.
The more honest people mine, the harder it is for dishonest people to get a significant fraction of the network. I think (and hope) we'll return to the original vision of a large number of miners, each with a small fraction of the network; but instead of the myriad miners being fan boys early adopters running mining rigs in their bedrooms, they will be corporations and governments. And this will happen because as those corporations and governments increasingly depend on Bitcoin, they will also look into mining and see it as a strategic need as well as a potential profit centre and good public relations. "Mining" has nothing to do with honesty but with money. The idea that people are "mining" because they are honest is ludicrous. Whatever entity decides to "mine" to secure the network will have to be ready to afford high levels of liability in their books. |
|
|
|
|
At this point, without any evidence about John's ID, it is very likely he was just a fictional character. His reputation solely came from his administrator/global moderator status, not from his established identity. So people trusted countless amount of funds to a person which could be just one more sock puppet among others. Keep in mind that Michael (a.k.a. Theymos) provided support to John as much he provided support to Tradefortress.
|
|
|
|
A double spend is not a duplication. The network never allows two spends for the same currency to be confirmed. Someone can be tricked/cheated but Bitcoin does not allow the same coin to be spent twice.
Of course it can happen, otherwise why would this be a very important security issue? If you think double spend transactions cannot happen then it is time to refresh your understanding of how the Bitcoin networks operate. The transaction malleability is not double spending attack. Dont be a dick and then show your ignorance like that. And Littleshop is right: Double spend =! duplication. Seem like you dont know how bitcoins work. If duplication is possible, there will be more than 21million bitcoins. Idiot I am not talking about transaction maleabity. A double spend attempt is equivalent to duplicate a certain BTC amount. Yes, it can be more than 21 million. There is nothing controlling how many BTC are in circulation. Wait? You think the 21 million number is something absolut? LOL |
|
|
|
A double spend is not a duplication. The network never allows two spends for the same currency to be confirmed. Someone can be tricked/cheated but Bitcoin does not allow the same coin to be spent twice.
Of course it can happen, otherwise why would this be a very important security issue? If you think double spend transactions cannot happen then it is time to refresh your understanding of how the Bitcoin networks operate. |
|
|
|
Banks are "Trusts"... No? You trust your funds will be there. bank
noun
1. an institution for receiving, lending, exchanging, and safeguarding money and, in some cases, issuing notes and transacting other financial business.
2. the office or quarters of such an institution.
3. Games.
a. the stock or fund of pieces from which the players draw.
b. the fund of the manager or the dealer.
4. a special storage place: a blood bank; a sperm bank.
5. a store or reserve. You are arguing semantics, and failing. A bank is nothing more than a storage location to keep things of value. Next you are going to say that credit unions are not banks... A blood-bank is a bank... Some even pay for blood, exchange blood for money, OMG! Yawn... TL;DR  You are becoming boring... Whatever are your arguments, Coinbase is not a bank. Any well informed person know this. |
|
|
|
With BTC, deflation FORCES you to take a pay raise every year. This means with fiat, the employer has to keep giving you empty pay raises to keep up. With BTC, your employer has to keep giving you empty pay cuts to keep up. Neither system is better, but it is a total 180 degree paradigm shift. Nothing like this has ever been done before on such a grand scale. It's gonna be real interesting where this bitcoin roller coaster takes us. Hang on, it's gonna git rough!  LoL No, certainly not. |
|
|
|
A wallet is a form of bank, if it is "held" there, you have "banked it". Is a piggy-bank not a bank...
If you hold MY money in your wallet for me, that would make YOU a bank, and your wallet the vault.
ROFL. Thank you for the laugh, at least you are funny in your insistence to misinform people. Hold your money in my leather wallet would made me a trustee, not a bank. By the way, I can ensure you that a leather wallet is certainly not a vault. |
|
|
|
So, Augusto Croppo...
If it is not any of that... then why are you here, using it? Obviously it isn't worth any real value... Oh, that's right, because to you, it is something of value, just like the money you hope to get for it...
Coinbase isn't a bank... Funny, it holds money... it transfers money... What exactly is a bank?
I have a leather wallet which holds money as well and I am sure it is not a bank. |
|
|
|
No, it cannot be deposited in the same way as money is deposited in a bank. Could you please shut up and save the newbies of your misinformation? Funny, I have a bank that accepts BTC and deposits into my bank account... It's called coinbase. ISAWHIM, please, just shut up. As more you talk, more it becomes clear your understanding of the discussed subject is poor. Coinbase is not a bank. |
|
|
|
It can be deposited the same way money is deposited... It just isn't yet... Unless you count safety-deposit-boxes, in banks.
My bank accepts Euro deposits, but not all do.. does that make Euro useless or not a FIAT?
You deposit a dollar, it is turned into virtual representation in the computer there. You are the bank in BTC. The Network is similar to a banks network. Except, unless stolen, your BTC is always there, where you left it. With a bank, it might be there, but normally it is lent-out again to another person. (The majority of solid deposits in a bank are lent-out.)
What, no-one can steal your identity and use your ATM card or CC number linked to your account in a bank, or just rob the bank?
No, it cannot be deposited in the same way as money is deposited in a bank. Could you please shut up and save the newbies of your misinformation? You can print "paper-wallets", which can not be hacked, and like a "check" or "bank note", represents your tender Yet another more stupid than ever comment... |
|
|
|
That's funny, my miners are physical... the computer running your wallet is physical, the internet fiber-optics are physical, the memory where these originate is physical... There are physical wallets and coins...
What isn't physical about it? Credit-cards are physical, FIAT is a physical form of "virtual trust", and banks...
You are more stupid than I thought... None of your examples makes BTC a tangible object. |
|
|
|
its military grade cryptography that is remodding the entire landscape as we know it, and their is not a single thing anyone can do to stop it not even a Quantum computer Yet another stupid comment... No, it is not a "military grade cryptography that is remodding the entire landscape". |
|
|
|
It's a virtual and physical asset, a stock in the network, a form of exchange (currency-value), and a commodity, all at the same time.
It can be spent, traded, earned, lost and destroyed... But not duplicated, extended in whole volume, or directly regulated beyond acceptable network programming. Thus, not a FIAT. (Just for the anti-counterfeiting alone, it will save us billions in losses. Ahem, Russia, Zimbabwe-dollars.)
How stupid you sound... No, it is not a "physical asset", it is not a "stock in the network" and it is not a "commodity". You barely got right about the medium of exchange. Yes, it can be "duplicated" (a.k.a. double spend), it can be "extend in whole volume" and it can be "directly regulated". |
|
|
|
it has another fatal economic flaw. Only 21 million units can ever be issued, and a fixed money supply is incompatible with a growing economy. lol that's one of cryptocurrencies' best points, how much are these guys getting paid to write this unconvincing bullshit? It can be a good point for an electronic medium of exchange, but it is not the best point for a REAL economy. By the way, I am sure the guy must be paid better than you. |
|
|
|
Ainda tem gente que acredita neste conto do vigario? Que piada. |
|
|
|
On a long enough timeline I think "fraudulent" miners are all but an inevitability. I could see an entity with say 20% of the network willing to accept out of band double spends for a hefty fee (either flat rate say $10 per tx, or a % of the tx amount). Do you not think large retailers might mitigate that risk by becoming miners themselves? If Bitcoin succeeds, I would expect many entities to be willing to devote some resources to mining, to make it harder for others to control a sizeable fraction of the network. With that goal, they don't need to make a profit, although any mining income will help defray the costs. No one in his sane mind will devote "mining" for the sake of the Bitcoin network. It is a cost intensive operation and without a prospect of profit it is meaningless. Moreover, others are already in control of a big chunk of the network. So "mining" is not going to mitigate any risk because the final cost for the sellers are going to be higher than the expected benefit. |
|
|
|
Good point. The statement is so vague... Why not a certain date? When I managed a group buy all my estimations where precise dates. I fail to understand why is so difficult to provide precise dates, except if there is something to hide from the public eyes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
