|
Not going to be a problem.
The key point is that there are several ways to make a payment which is internal and thus instant, without having to trust an eWallet with your money. So you don't really have to sacrifice security for convenience.
|
|
|
|
This concept is usually known as "brain wallets".
It's only a brain wallet if it's a private key/seed and it's memorized. The OP didn't say anything about private keys or memorization. BTW, the variable you named "sha_pubkey" actually contains the Bitcoin private key, so you should rename that one.  No, according to my understanding of the code sha_pubkey is (the hash of) the public key, the private key is nowhere to be found. If there was a conversion from private to public, we'd see a mention of ECDSA. |
|
|
|
I doubt 1gb will be that expensive in the future to store, storage capacity is still growing faster than blockchain size. Hard drives double about every two years. If the block chain is doubling every year then it will become a problem. Transaction fees are currently very low to help adoption, but I think it's inevitable that they will have to be much higher in the future. Transaction fees are already ~2.5$/trans to the miners. That's already too high in my view. And yes I am including the block reward as that IS essentially a fee all BTC holders pay to miners. As you said yourself it's not a transaction fee, it's a holding fee. It's not the marginal price of making a transaction, you don't have to pay $2500 if you want to broadcast 1000 transactions. Anyone who holds any bitcoins has signed up for the inflation schedule. |
|
|
|
Since Joe is untrusted, every receiver of the coin will have to verify that the combined address indeed has coins, so it's not as easy to use as a Casascius physical coin. Also, it's not much more secure than a normal CPC - assuming the coin is to be used multiple times, nobody can be sure that April and Joe aren't the same person and thus have both private keys. I don't think it's the same thing. |
|
|
|
This is an interesting idea, but I think for the risk that the lenders are going to be taking, they would have to charge sky high interest rates. (And maybe this is feasible). There's a reason brokers don't offer margin trading on penny stocks and junk bonds.
Lending money with junk bonds as collateral (for going long on the bonds) is impossible. But lending junk bonds with money as collateral (for shorting the bonds) is safe and useful. |
|
|
|
|
Once equilibrium is reached, appreciation in the purchasing power of a bitcoin will not be due to growth in Bitcoin usage, but due to growth in the economy. If the whole economy manufactures 3% more value this year than last year, and this value chases the same number of bitcoins, the value of each Bitcoin will increase by 3%. But assuming the population is fixed, the productive capacity of each employee will also have increased by 3%, which means that the nominal Bitcoin salary will remain constant on average.
Of course, since this is just the average, the not-so-bright employees will probably receive a nominal salary decrease where before they would just get no raise, so some change in mindset will have to be adopted.
And, while Bitcoin is still growing, the nominal salaries will indeed decrease.
|
|
|
|
No need to bump after just 2 hours. As it happens I was reading the thread before the new post. Let's start with storage. If there are 3,000 nodes then the extra 1GB means 3TB additional aggregate storage. 3TB of storage cost about $200. So the would-be attacker caused $200 of damage with a $10000 investment. With output upkeep costs as I suggested elsewhere, the transactions won't even remain in the blockchain for very long. In short, blockchain storage isn't a problem at all. Bandwidth and signature verification are a bit more costly, but those too are bearable with a proper setup. Right now a "proper setup" hasn't yet matured, but we're getting there. Yes, in the future most people will not run full nodes. We may have a transaction propagation incentivization scheme as in the red balloons paper, and we may also have a market of node services. Also, organizations with a big stake in Bitcoin who do not want to take any chances will also run their own node with no direct profit. And in any case, a more accurate fee structure will eventually be implemented, but there's no urgent problem for now. It's a wholly interesting project!
It is, welcome to Bitcoin and the forum. |
|
|
|
And keep in mind, that every perpetual mining turd (no part of the turd coupon is at fixed % rate. X Mh/s only aka turd holder can enjoy all the risks) are perpetual losers unless BTC difficulty starts to drop and earnings per Mh/s start to go up)
Let's agree not to derail this thread into an argument about the merits of the mining bond model. But as you can see OP, margin trading for GLBSE is in high demand as there are people believing some of the assets are currently significantly overvalued. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, margin trading on GLBSE assets is very important, preferably on GLBSE itself but an external platform would work too.
No, I don't think it as straightforward as you think. If you treat it as an easy hobby project rather than a serious undertaking, I wouldn't trust the result enough to use it.
If you go ahead with this, keep in mind the following:
1. You need to take into account not only asset prices, but also dividends. If someone short-sells an asset, you need to keep track of dividends paid and deduct them from his balance, and so on.
2. Most of the assets aren't very liquid, with low depth and high volatility.
3. Many of the assets are capable of very large swings - e.g., buyback clauses of bonds which instantly cause the price to spike, pass-through bonds which can drop to 0 if their underlying defaults, or just the bond issuer defaulting. For example, it is fundamentally impossible for an untrusted party to take a leveraged long position on Pirate, because 100% backing is needed in case he defaults.
|
|
|
|
There is quite a significant difference: if you close out a position, typically with a stop-loss order, the whole position is gone.
Currently there is no ability to do a stop-loss order, so a feature that is only relevant to stop-loss orders is moot for now. For manually closing positions, you can liquidate part of a position, you don't have to liquidate it entirely. Probably the key question here is: at which point exactly does the BTC / USD rate come into play? When exactly does "translated to USD" happen. Because the BTC rate can move. That's the point, it's about risk.
So, please, what model is implemented by Bitdaytrade?
Model-A: You use the BTC from the currency account to really buy into the gold market. From that point on, the value of the account and thus the margin is determined by the valuation of these positions in the gold market. The BTC rate can move anywhere, because its irrelevant at that point. The BTC are sold. When the gold position is closed, we buy BTC back. In case Bitdaytrade implemets this model, then it would be a real derivative: you'd allow your customers to swap the cash flows and risks of the two markets.
Model-B: The customer deposits BTC, and that is where the value and the risk stays. The customer can than bet on the gold rate, but the value of the account (and the margin) is still tied to the BTC value. When the BTC/USD rate drops, the customer gets a margin call. This behaviour would prove that in this case: either (a) no real trade on the gold market happened, or (b) the bitdaytrade platfrom carries the risk of their speculative gold positions not matching the value of the BTC positions.
I thought it was clear from my description that it's model B. Your conclusion doesn't follow. When you buy a gold contract on BDT, BDT buys a gold contract on another market with its USD reserves; when you liquidate it, BDT liquidates it making a USD profit/loss. You will also have a profit/loss, added to your BTC balance based on the BTCUSD rate at the time, and BDT will buy/sell this amount of bitcoins on the BTC market to maintain its BTC position. This is all of course how it should happen in theory, I don't know if it's implemented yet. I'd like to remind that I'm not an official spokesperson for the Bitdaytrade platform itself, I just share what I know based on my discussions with Alberto. |
|
|
|
The scheduled coupons will be paid starting July 27. On July 20 a coupon of 0.005 BTC per bond will be paid as it is only one day after the IPO.
What about this? Alberto is having some trouble using GLBSE, we'll try to sort this out soon. Update: 0.006 BTC per bond have been paid due to being 1 day overdue. |
|
|
|
Im having trouble withdrawing my tiny amount of coins...
I get a processing window popup... and nothing else.
If you're still having this problem please contact info(at)bitdaytrade.com. My understanding is as follows: BTC deposit -> denomination in USD, based on the current rate -> available margin.
Right. Now, lets assume for example, if I open riskless positions in the gold market, i.e. open a long and a short in such a way, that they cancel out each others effect completely (both would need to have the same closing price). And lets assume further, that I use all the available margin for doing so. (opening such a position incurs 2 times the spread, so that is what I pay for that kind of insurance per week)
Given that construction, to what extend is my BTC position now hedged?
For example, if the BTC rate drops considerably, while I'm "in" such a riskless gold position?
Would I get a margin call? Or is the current margin based on the current value of my account, which -- as assumed -- should be completely anchored in the gold market now?
The ability to have opposing positions will soon be disabled, because there's not much point in it - what you would profit on one you would lose on the other. Opening a short position when you already have a long one will instead liquidate part of the long position. You will be force-liquidated if your net value (account balance translated to USD + Profit/loss from current positions) drops below 1% (the current maintenance value for gold) of your position (position size multiplied by the current price of a single contract). |
|
|
|
But has pruning been implemented?
No. But it's being worked on. There is no way that people are going to use bitcoin in the intended way if they need to download 4gb (and then another couple 100 every week) just in order to make payments.
It was never intended that every Bitcoin user will download the entire blockchain. This is a problem that is dismissed far too quickly by the same old arguments.
...
It is counterproductive to simply dismiss this problem as solved, because it isn't actually solved yet
I see it the other way around - the same old arguments about the size of the blockchain are dismissed because they bring nothing new to the discussion and ignore existing work on the subject. Yes, the solutions still need to be implemented. But complaining about it isn't helping. |
|
|
|
I believe from client side there will be a solution, but how about blockchain itself?
After some study I can see that with today's 400 transaction/10minute rate, the block size is already 250K, if BTC gained popularity quickly, then there will be thousands of transactions per minute
It's basically a solved problem. There's pruning and there are ways to do transfers outside of the blockchain. Also, not everyone needs the blockchain so it can afford to be a bit large. |
|
|
|
|
The blockchain size is directly proportional to the number of transactions in Bitcoin's history. The blockchain is larger now because there are more transactions. This is in large part due to SatoshiDice, but also due to general growth.
There are indeed lightweight clients (they don't work in the way you suggested though) and this is an active development subject. There are also eWallets such as blockchain.info's MyWallet which do not require trust.
|
|
|
|
What is the currency account actually?When I just deposit some BTC into my Bitdaytrade account, without opening any trading position -- what happens then actually? - are these BTC just sitting in some wallet on your site?
- or are you selling them for USD right away and hold a constant USD balance somewhere?
Bitcoins that you deposit remain in BTC form. Gold positions are denominated in USD but settled in BTC equivalent when liquidated. For example, if you buy a gold contract at $1600 and sell it at $1700, your profit is $100, and if at liquidation time a BTC is $8, you will have 12.5 BTC added to your balance. How are interest rates actually handled?On your frontpage, you display some interest rates for holding open long positions. - What does "weekly" mean precisely?
- at what point in time do you charge them
- how do you treat positions open only for a fraction of a week
- are the displayed interest rates established dynamically? How precise is the actual calculation? Right now, you display "3%" for an open old long position worth $10000. But 300 / 7 = 42.857142857, and not "42.23" as displayed. Thus, what rate are you actually using?
- Are the actual interest payments displayed anywhere within my account? (e.g. in the history?). I couldn't find any indication.
The interest mechanism is still being worked on, I don't believe it is now actively charged. The idea is to have the interest deducted from your account on an hourly basis, so that the total per week is the displayed percentage. For now the weekly values are hardcoded but this will eventually be replaced by a dynamic system that adjusts to demand. There's currently a mistake in the displayed daily/hourly values due to usage of a calculation that is not applicable for this situation, it will be corrected. There will likely be some form of summary of the interest payments. |
|
|
|
Read up on Open Transactions. It comes with its own set of tradeoffs and I don't know how it will fit in the Bitcoin world in large, but just because Bitcoin itself isn't truly anonymous doesn't mean it can't be used anonymously by those who want it. Also, you can have Bitcoin p2p mixing transactions which do not rely on a centralized service which could misbehave. |
|
|
|
|
When you are on the page of a given asset, you have a link "Dividend payments" which opens a table of all the dividends ever paid by it (with timestamps). Watch the "Payment per share" column and compare it to what was promised.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
