The article has little to do with Bitcoin except for this mention: It would be possible to get around the problem of hoarding by abolishing cash, Mr Haldane said, adding: "What I think is now reasonably clear is that the payment technology embodied in [digital currency] Bitcoin has real potential."
Little to do with bitcoin? seriously? This forum is for posting links to articles about Bitcoin. That article is not about Bitcoin, but it mentioned Bitcoin, so I guess it is appropriate. I posted the quote that referred to Bitcoin so that people could see the reference to Bitcoin without having to read the entire article, which was about something else. |
|
|
|
I have preemptively put OP on ignore. Newbie who speaks broken English looking to get paid to post what is most likely going to be hard to understand crap that adds nothing...fuck that.
You can go one step further and ignore everyone that has joined a signature campaign. It is quite a different forum experience. Click on the link to DannyHamilton's ignore list in my signature. |
|
|
|
|
Typically, the private key is printed on a piece of paper and placed under a tamper-resistant sticker attached to the coin. There are some variations of this method.
|
|
|
|
The only mention of Bitcoin is: These phones would have have decentralized communications software pre-installed, or would connect to a node-based network styled after the Bitcoin network.
|
|
|
|
How can you expect someone to do a job without an exchange of money?
I understand the system and its really cool for me, but....
people need money, people sell their time for money...
it will only work if you can pay your food with your time.
And I'm afraid it wont work this time.
The idea is to have money backed by time. When a person does work, they earn a credit for each hour that they work. The credits have value because they can always be exchanged for an hour of someone else's work. For example, you work for an hour and someone pays you 1 credit. You take credit to the grocery store and buy some food. The grocery store pays their employees and wholesalers with the credits from customers. etc. |
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that if you join a signature campaign, you will be ignored by many users (including some of the most experienced ones). Members of signature campaigns are ignored because they tend to spam the forums in order to increase their post counts.
|
|
|
|
|
I recently ordered a 2014 Original and I have yet to receive any kind of confirmation of my order (except for the receipt from Coinbase). Is that normal?
|
|
|
|
The article has little to do with Bitcoin except for this mention: It would be possible to get around the problem of hoarding by abolishing cash, Mr Haldane said, adding: "What I think is now reasonably clear is that the payment technology embodied in [digital currency] Bitcoin has real potential."
|
|
|
|
|
The "scotpound" has nothing to do with Bitcoin. I would simply be another fiat currency. The difference between it and the currencies of other countries would be that no paper money would be issued -- a trivial difference in theory, but a fatal flaw in reality.
|
|
|
|
Inevitably, in the case of a "civil war" (to use Nick Szabo's words) where we have surviving, competing blockchains, wallets will need to be able to distinguish between inputs that were created before and after the hard fork (and if created after the fork, to which fork they belong).
At first, both branches of the fork would contain the same transactions because the issue does not concern most transactions. The only transactions that would be rejected on one branch would involve the bitcoins rewarded to miners on the other branch. The branches would become more incompatible as the bitcoins rewarded to miners after the fork are circulated. There would be an interesting situation where coins created before the fork can be spent twice (once on each branch) after the fork. |
|
|
|
|
Why can't Bitcoin Foundation members pay with bitcoin? Also, is it the 16th or the 18th?
|
|
|
|
Ok, so miners decide over whether to fork or not by setting their preferred version bits in the mined blocks. But wait! What if a bunch of rogue miners with a lot of hashing power would try to enforce a fork against the will of all other users? As miners will want their revenue, they will want to sell their mined coins. But if no other user would want to pay for coins correlated to the fork, enforcing the fork would mean a costly revenue loss.
While real world scenarios are hardly as simple as the one sketched above, it suggests that Bitcoin may be more democratic for non-miners with respect to forking decisions if common wallet implementations would allow distinguishing between version bits of the blocks where the coins originate from.
Any thoughts or objections?
Miners can't force anyone to use their branch of the block chain any more than Litecoin miners can force someone to switch to Litecoin. Miners just produce a block chain. If there are two branches, then full nodes and other users decide which branch they want to follow. The winner of the block size debate won't be decided by the miners. It will be decided by the users. If 90% of the users pick the Core branch and 10% pick the XT branch, then the Core branch will dominate even if only 1% of the miners mine it. Miners will be forced to mine the branch that users choose because if they mine the losing chain, they won't be able to use the bitcoins they mine. Unfortunately, it is possible for both branches to persist, though that would cause major problems (what Nick Szabl calls a "civil war"). To avoid a disaster, there must be enough users choosing one branch to coerce the rest of the users to also choose that branch. This is why Gavin is working to convince exchanges and wallet providers to jump on the XT bandwagon. |
|
|
|
I think a big problem with bitcoin is the average joe cannot mine succesfully like before though.
That is a myth. The "average joe" has never been able to make a decent (if any) profit from mining. Even when CPU mining dominated, people generally mined at a loss.How come CPU mining be unprofitable for those who mined then and sold later ? Before bitcoins had value, miners spent money mining worthless bitcoins. Once bitcoins had value, the value of the mined bitcoins were still less than the cost to mine them. Holding bitcoins has been very profitable for some people, including the miners that mined at a loss. |
|
|
|
|
His requirement for permanent inflation makes his presentation moot.
|
|
|
|
|
It is not POS, it is Proof Of Work. You try over and over again and eventually it will work for one lucky person.
|
|
|
|
Please keep in mind that the Elizabeth93 is probably trying to get a few BTC out of some suckers. That's why she is asking for tips. I predict that Elizabeth93 will post a few more posts in this thread and then never be seen again.
As I predicted, this thread was simply an attempt by a scammer to try to get money out of people. I'm happy to see that it did not succeed. |
|
|
|
I think a big problem with bitcoin is the average joe cannot mine succesfully like before though.
That is a myth. The "average joe" has never been able to make a decent (if any) profit from mining. Even when CPU mining dominated, people generally mined at a loss. |
|
|
|
|
There is the issue of tools and capital.
Person A takes 8 hours to dig a trench with a shovel.
Person B takes 8 minutes to dig the same trench with a backhoe.
How much do you pay Person A? How much do you pay Person B?
There is the issue of expertise.
Person C can sew a dress in 1 hour.
Person C's 8 year old daughter can sew that same dress in 8 hours.
How much do you pay Person C? How much do you pay the daughter?
|
|
|
|
Since modern money is based on a lie, I think following paradox is more appropriate: This statement is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
