Bitcoin Forum
September 03, 2015, 04:30:23 AM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 368 »
1401  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization on: February 20, 2013, 07:01:14 PM
There's one possibility that I'm surprised no one has mentioned. That the rise and performance of Bitcoin as a store of value (forget about fast payments) creates competitive pressure on fiat currencies to stop inflating and remove capital controls. Wishful thinking? Or could fiat currencies become the "alt chains" needed to fill in the gaps?

They already are.  Bitcoin is not intended to, nor is it likely to, replace national currencies.  It's going to be a long time coming before Bitcoins displace paper cash in small daily transactions.  That said, it's not unreasonable to assume, should the central banking model not be able to adjust to the reality of Bitcoin (and presumedly not be able to destroy it), that new paper cash currencies that claim a reserve backing of bitcoins that displace national fiat currencies.  So yes, in many cases simple paper cash would function as an "alt-chain" just fine; although I'd predict that should a bitcoin backed banknote ever come into existance, it's more likely to be a plastic token with a digtial artifact imbedded into it, probably using many of the very advanced security features that casino tokens use today.  And just like the gold in a vault never actually moves under a (auditable) gold standard, the bitcoins that presume to back those banknotes would rarely, if ever, need to move across the blockchain.  The important part to all this is that, in the end, any peer forever has the ability to move transactions across the blockchain.  That is the part that makes it 'decentralized', not the number of network nodes (although that is an important minimum) or the common size of a mining operation.  The important part is that there are no 'super-nodes' with special abilities to ignore or exclude other nodes from the network.  If the block-max-size issue ever started to trend toward nodes that were so much larger than the entry level node as to functionally have the ability/incentive to ignore the small nodes, and have that actually work, then I'd be concerned.  I do not claim to know what is the best method for increasing the blocksize limit, but I do not believe that increasing it to 10mb, 20mb or even 50mb as a hard limit would be a dramatic burden on most full nodes.  Perhaps a combo solution; a higher than currently reasonable hard limit combined with an adjustment algo for a soft limitation.  For example, the hard limit could be set to something like 250Mb, and an algo that can adjust the soft limitations within that hard limit withn a range based upon, perhaps, the average number of blocks delayed that a minimum fee transaction experiences during the prior two week period. 

Although I havn't a clue how that could be actually implimented.
1402  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Is it possible for an exchange to manipulate prices for own profit? on: February 20, 2013, 05:34:56 AM
Of course it's possible.  You're trusting that the exchange sites are honest.  These trades are onsite, not on the blockchain, so there is no way to be certain that they are not, in practice, manipulating the exchange prices to their own benefit.

I've pretty much assumed that they do this as a matter of course for three years, but whatever they might actually be doing, doesn't shift the official price by much or for long.  Any bot making trades over a one cent move still makes money.
1403  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 20, 2013, 05:24:53 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

On another note I wonder why buying raw breast milk is legal in the US?

It's not.
1404  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization on: February 19, 2013, 11:23:39 PM

Yeah I know that is not realistic. But it seems to give some insight into the numbers, at least to me. Full nodes seemingly are not settling up even as often as qarterly right now, why is that? Is it that actually there are only about 10,000 individual users actively transacting currently at any one time / on any given hour or during any given day or something like that?

-MarkM-


None of the above.  If there are 10K full nodes, then there are 10K copies of the blockchain.  That is all that this implies.  There is no data to tell us; 1) how many are single user nodes versus how many are multi-user nodes or Stratum servers, 2) how many users on any of these light client servers exist nor 3) how often these users need to "settle up".  The actual number of the full clients in the network is mostly a product of the "many-copies-keeps-data-safe" security model.  But the cost of this redundency is not zero (even though it's still cheaper than fiat currencies).  This cost would be spread out greater as the market grows, but the resources that miners consume are not the only costs of running the network, as a great many of those resources are contributed in-kind by users with both the resources and the determination to run full nodes.  As the resources required to participate in the network as a full node increase (at a rate faster than those same resources grow, as available to the average power user) some of those back-up nodes with marginal/non-existent pay-back will stop participating.  Hopefully, the services of running a parrallel payment network, for example BitcoinSpinner's business model, will be able to turn a profit, since they will (out of necessity) also run a full node.
1405  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 19, 2013, 09:22:39 PM
Quote
So the argument that humans shouldn't be drinking milk because it's not natural to drink another species' milk or beyond the age of four is, at best, lacking in scientific support.

I agree, like almost all nutritional claims, this one lacks scientific support.  It's really hard (and most would consider immoral) to do a decent controlled nutritional study.  Also, nobody really cares anyway, we care more about tradition and fashion than nutrition in our dietary decisions.  After all we have health insurance.    

That being said, lactose intolerance is really common and there are a ton of people suffering from allergies, chronic problems, that probably are somewhat lactose intolerant and don't know it.  Casein has also been shown to be a strong factor in cancerous growth.  


This reminds me of another point.  Lactose intolerance in adulthood is a relatively uncommon occurance in humans, which is why it's considered a medical condition.  Whereas, every other mammal loses the ability to properly digest milk of their own species shortly following infancy, including actual dairy cows.  Lactose intolerance in human infants is far more rare than in adulthood, also.

This also implies; both from a scientific/evolutionary model and from a religious/creationist model; that humans are generally evolved/designed to consume dairy products, for the inability to do so in adulthood is abnormal.
1406  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization on: February 19, 2013, 09:11:36 PM
I suspect we could double the block size without massive disruption, but once you start where does it end?

Doubling the liimit might well just prove it is going to give way at every push or shove, leading it it being pushed and shoved way up beyond any reasonable person-to-person network's personal computer's ability to actually operate as a node on a personal internet connection.

It will become a business to business or even backbone to backbone network, making the whole p2p premise just a bait-and-switch trick used to con people into doing the initial investment and work to get the elite's new elite billionaire-to-billionaire-network up and running initially and suck people in to the early adoption phase of it.


You seem to fear the inevitable.  If Bitcoin is ever to become truly successful, a transaction throughput volume that is well beyond what the average end user is capable of, or willing to, committing the resources to maintain a full client must occur.  There is no point in crying about this, it has already begun.  I dont run a full client anymore, myself.  While it's important that the blockchain be replicated many places across the Internet, and into the deep web such as Tor, there comes a point of rapidly dimminishing returns.  I think that we have around 10K full nodes that can be identified (which should exclude any in the deep web), who here thinks that this isn't more than enough redundency for security purposes?  There must be some degree of centralization, as the bitcoin network as it presently exists is too costly relative to it's current market size.  We don't want the network to get smaller, really, but nor do we need it to grow more; we simply need the market to outgrow the network until the relative costs of running the netowrk are much lower than now, and we need this to happen well before the block reward cuts in half once again.


Light clients and their supporting overlay networks are the future of Bitcoin, if it is to ever have one. 
Eventually, a live transaction on the main netowrk should become an uncommon event, relative to the number of off-network transactions that occur.  This futture has been known to those of us that are versed in economic theory, for as the economy grows the growth must outpace the ability of the main bitcoin netowrk to scale.  As this happens, there will be incentives for off-network transactions to dominate; and a balance between the costs of the main network with it's high security model versus the costs with overlay and parrallel netowrks with their lower transaction costs and associated less seucre models will develop.  If Bitcoin is to ever become as large an economy as, for example, the SystemD (for which it is so well suited) the vast majority of small value and daily transactions are gointg to be handled by overlay networks and the online wallet-like servies that develop them; while higher value transactions (for example, your weekly paycheck) might still be handled by the main netowrk.
1407  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 19, 2013, 08:49:02 PM
Don't most of us consume raw milk when we're babies anyway Tongue

Actually, human milk is another market that is regulated out of existence.  Human milk has a lot of advantages for infants but in some cases mothers are unable to feed their own children and have to resort to formula or rely on donated milk.  If there were a bitcoin-enabled market in human milk, more children could be fed in this way, and mothers who are able to produce extra milk could be rewarded.

Funny you should mention that, for I have a story in this regard.  My wife is particularly well suited to breastfeed multiples, and as my first born was starting to age out of breastmilk, my wife joined a breastmilk donation network for a time.  It was a religious calling for her, and for the next month or so, she laborously pumped, sorted, froze and shipped several gallons of breastmilk in single baby-bottles.  That was the first time that I had ever heard that there was a federal law against deliberately profitting from human sourced tissue or bio-products.  Yet, blood plasma companies work around this limitation by paying the donator labor time, because the donation process is time consuming.

It's also surreal how effective of a weight loss program that a high yield breastmilk extraction activity can be.  Presumedly, it's also pretty effective at sucking the nutrients out of the donator as well.

But I digress...

1408  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally? on: February 19, 2013, 05:05:29 PM


You're very much correct, but it's still very difficult to not be jealous of those people who made that excellent decision.

How do you feel about those of us with the luck to discover Bitcoin early, and the education to understand it's implications, but not the balls to invest all I *cough* <<we had?

I made a small investment in late 2010, and since then my bitcoin holdings increased in value by about 41,500%  If I had the balls to withdraw from my 401K and buy bitcoins then, I'd be that guy with a fortune close to 1% of all bitcoins.  

BTW, that is probably Satoshi himself.  If he is still alive, he deserves it.
1409  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally? on: February 19, 2013, 02:07:43 PM
I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal,  with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.

I thought it was not allowed to use the P-word here. Ban him!


No.  The ignore button is to your left.
1410  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally? on: February 19, 2013, 02:06:13 PM
Sharing all bitcoins initially is a very hard (impossible) thing to do. Think about it.

The current method, maybe not perfect, but it *works*. Better something imperfect that works, than some idealistic notion that can never actually be implemented in the real world.

Also consider the nature of bitcoin being peer to peer. You cannot simply "give" everybody a bitcoin. Who's to decide who gets a bitcoin and who doesn't? How is that decision made? The Pope decides? Then it's no longer peer to peer and is controlled or influenced by some person or authority.

I don't think you understand how technically difficult "sharing coins equally" would be. That's the key here: not that everyone would be against the idea, but that it's technically hard/impossible to implement what you suggest in a method that is actually "fair". ("fair" also being subject to opinion)

As it is, it works much like investing in a startup company. It's like we're investing in Apple or Google or something in the early days.

Also you have to understand that the possibility of the early adopters earning a return is a great part of why Bitcoin is now successful. It's successful *because* it allowed early speculators to earn money; they drove its adoption and popularised it. If that had not been so, maybe they wouldn't have bothered so much and bitcoin would have failed or just been a niche curiosity.

The most important thing to know though is that this method is technically simple, very transparent (read: even if it's not considered "fair" by you, at least it's *HONEST* and everyone knows precisely how it occurs, and can easily make the decision whether to use it or not), and also roughly parallel to investing and speculating in something which is widely accepted as a fairly honest method of wealth gaining or creation.

I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal,  with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.
State currencies also not perfect but work. So we are replacing one flawed system with another flawed one?
The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.
I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.

Feel free to fork the code and attempt your view.  It's already been done, though, and it never made it out of the planning stages.  The design of Bitcoin is not arbitrary. There are many reasons that bitcoin is the way it is, and being different from central banking/fractional researve/national fiat currencies is definately one of those reasons.

The Bank of Canada is developing an electronic version of their currency, so it won't be very long before you get exactly what you want without the effort.  It remains to be seen if it will offer any real alternative to Bitcoin, though.  I have my own doubts.
1411  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Introduce yourself :) on: February 19, 2013, 04:38:26 AM

I'm new to bitcoin I was doing other things but have seen it as a payment for years. Not sure if its sustainable which is a doubt if its cut as I've read

Care to explain?
1412  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Introduce yourself :) on: February 19, 2013, 04:36:45 AM
Hey everyone, I'm B-ran, or just B. I am a member of a few forums involving btc, now this one. I actually ran upon this site due to my funds not being confirmed into my wallet so I was told to come here. Now that I found this, I am super happy because this will answer a lot of my questions. Thanks for the awesome forum admins!!

There are other forums with a focus on Bitcoin? Where?
1413  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 19, 2013, 01:00:38 AM
After reading how much puss and fecal matter is in pasturized milk I dont drink it at all.  I hear raw milk is better but just stopped drinking milk completely I've been scarred.  Undecided

Most mammals stop drinking milk at a certain point in their childhood.  This is how we were built / evolved. 
A few others are pretty fucked up and drink it all the time despite the obvious health problems that result. 

Humans are, in many respects, unique among the animal kingdom.  We can actually metabolize a great many toxins, and are likely the most diverse animal in this respect.  A great example of this is chocolate, which can kill most predators if consumed in any quantity considered normal to above normal for an adult human.  Basicly the quantity required to give a child a stomach ache is likely to kill a dog without a vet's intervention.  Some things that we sometimes put into a salad are also toxic to carnivores, such as some mushrooms.  Coffee beans are mildly toxic, also.  Other less dramatic examples of commonly consumed foods that are toxic to other animals (and to some degree, humans also) include, but are not limited to, avocados, many nuts and partcularly macadamia nuts, peanuts (which, technically, are not nuts), raisins, onions, garlic, several common spices such as chives, and artifical sweeteners such as xylitol; although it's also arguable that all artifical sweeteners are also toxic to humans, by their very nature.

So the argument that humans shouldn't be drinking milk because it's not natural to drink another species' milk or beyond the age of four is, at best, lacking in scientific support.
1414  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 18, 2013, 02:29:12 PM
If you guys want to die of food poisoning, that's fine with me.
This shows how powerful the propaganda of the "processed food" lobby is: their FUD make you think that it can be dangerous  not to buy their shit..
Same mechanism is used by banks to denigrate bitcoin.

Food safety is relative.  For example, nearly all salt for human consumption in the industrilized world contains iodine, because lack of iodine goitre in adults, and some types of mental retardation in infants.  Is the sale of tablesalt without added iodine illegal in the US?  No, it's not.  It simply has to be marked so that it cannot be confused with "regular" tablesalt.  I can buy it at Kroger or Wal-Mart under the names "Sea Salt", "Kosher Salt" or "Pickling Salt"; but it just never says just "Salt"unless it contains iodine.  Which is more dangerous, consuming raw milk (quickly enough to be reasonable) or consuming Kosher Salt?  Almost certainly the latter, but that point is moot.  Unpasterized milk should not be illegal in the United States, the idea is as Un-American as the table salt ban in NY city.

EDIT:  Additionally, consuming raw milk is as safe as pasturized, if the milk is consumed within a 24 hour period.  This was the economic motivation of the daily "milk man" deliveries of yesteryear.  They didn't even bother to refigerate it even after refrigerators were common.  To additionally reduce risk and impede bacterial growth, the milk man would usually add a silver dime to each bottle.  The silver in the dime would give off silver ions into the milk, which would not harm people but was toxic to bacteria.
1415  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 18, 2013, 05:18:53 AM


Nothing about bitcoin changes this.  Almost all laws banning things ban the distribution AND sale so that even if you gave it away for free it would not be any different.

This is generally not true in the United States.  Since the consumption of raw milk isn't actually something that can be banned under US law, for a variety of historical reasons, it's actually the act of engaging in commerce that is prohibited with raw milk.  It's actually a law that exists to favor major dairy producers & grocery stores, since raw milk wouldn't safely survive the lengthy trip from factory farm to the grocery store to the average home refrigerator reliablely enough to compete with the small farmer who simply offers the day's raw milk for purchase.  Raw milk, kept refrigerated and consumed quickly, isn't dangerous.  It's the delay that the modern food industry adds to the mix that is risky.  Bear in mind, milk was designed to be consumed immediately; yet well before the age of refrigeration, the early production of cheese was a process that took days.
1416  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could Bitcoin be a solution for the raw milk market? on: February 18, 2013, 05:08:25 AM
here in australia you can legally buy unprocessed 'bath milk', as long as you're only using it to add to your bath water and not drinking it *wink wink*

is this not possible in the US?


First of all, bathing in milk is very uncommon in the US, and usually only happens in spas.  But the answer to your question is no, not legally.
1417  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I was charged extra for using my credit card on: February 16, 2013, 03:00:43 AM
Fine, you guys all suck, and you all seem to have more experience with modern CC transaction than I do.  I'm too old, etc.

I still stand by my opinion that 7% isn't unrealistic.  Good luck disproving my opinion, which is what it always was, and it still is.

High?  Yes.  Excessively high?  No, it's not.  Who gets to decide?  I do, because it's my opinion.

So bite me, children.
1418  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Coinbase is "Down for maintenance" -- Missing 100BTC sent 10 hours ago. on: February 16, 2013, 02:54:41 AM
I've had positive experiences with Coinbase, but I have to admit that I've never trusted anyone with so much bitcoin value at once.  If this is a hack or a white turned black node fraud, I'm truly sorry for your loss. 
1419  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Can we create a bitcoin mobile app store? on: February 16, 2013, 02:49:42 AM
Go right ahead, but I can't see the value myself.  Most of the bitcoin related apps I've seen are both free to download as well as host on most of the app sites for android, and you're all around screwed if you depend upon Iphones, since the Apple App Store doesn't permit anything related to bitcoins on iOS and 'failbreaking' is required to run any app not permitted by Apple.  Thus, only Android apps are likely to survive and all of them can be found on the Google Play Store.
1420  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I was charged extra for using my credit card on: February 16, 2013, 01:33:40 AM
Where do you get this idea that square can't be used at a "fixed location".  If I stand still to long does that become a fixed location.  7% for a swiped CC transaction isn't a realistic number.  You made up some stupid explanation and now just can't accept that you are wrong.  There is nothing square's TOS which prohibits it being used in a POS location.

https://squareup.com/register/receipt-printer-and-cash-drawer



Credit cards might be last world technology and a ripoff but Square is at least innovating somewhat and they deserve credit (without FUD) for that.  Hell they actually now have a 0% fee option.  $275 per month for up to $20,833 in transactions (works out to about 1.3% for a merchant which maxes it out).

Well, technically you are correct on this point.  I just checked the TOS.  No, they wouldn't prevent you from setting up Square in a normal storefront as your primary POS system.  Instead, the CC companies can compell Square to require you to engage into a pass-through agreement with the CC companies directly, which acheives the same end goal....

Quote

7. Our Role.
The Services allow you to accept payments, including card-based payments initiated with cards bearing the trademarks of MasterCard International Inc. and Visa Inc. (collectively, the “Networks”). We are not a bank, and we do not offer banking services as defined by the United States Department of Treasury. We also do not offer money service business (“MSB”) services as defined by the United States Department of Treasury.

As a merchant payment processor, Square processes payments you receive from your customers. This means that we collect, analyze and relay information generated in connection with these payments.

In order to serve in this role, we must enter into agreements with Networks, other processors and banks. These third parties require that some of our users enter into an agreement with Square’s payment processor of record. If you are such a user, we will provide you a “Commercial Entity Agreement” that you must complete in order to use the Services. This may happen during the registration process or at some other time. If you fail to complete a “Commercial Entity Agreement,” we may suspend or terminate your Square Account.

And there is an enforcement clause that you agreed to that could be used towards this end...

Quote
4. Verification and Inspection.
If your request to open a Square Account is approved, Square may request additional information from you at any time. Square may ask you to present invoices from your suppliers, a government issued identification such as a passport or driver’s license, or a business license. Square may also ask for permission to inspect your business location. If you refuse any of these requests, your Square Account may be terminated. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate the Square Account of any user who provides inaccurate, untrue, or incomplete information, or fails to comply with the account registration requirements.


So while you can set up anything that you like, if your business starts processing enough transactions that the CC companies feel that you should be paying them directly, I'm sure that they will let you know when it's time to "upgrade" your contracts.

https://squareup.com/legal/cea
Pages: « 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 368 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!