I have 1000 FRC available in trade for TRC, BTC, LTC or BTC. Make an offer.They are going fast! (literally)(edit: currently awaiting restocking, if you want to sell FRC please PM me.) In light of the lack of another FRC thread, this one can continue as a discussion vehicle. Please try to keep on topic, avoid the same old flame wars, and wherever possible provide links and quote important information. where u get these from?? got a link to the client / daemon? and whitepaper, pools etc?
website: http://freico.in/Forums: www.freicoin.orgGithub: https://github.com/freicoin/freicoinThe forums are a mess, I'm still trying to sort it out, here's a quick dump. It was referenced in a "lost bitcoins" conversation recently, so I grabbed the client (released on 12-21-12) and started solo mining. I'm still looking for more information such as the coin limit (if any) (21 million I think) but I know this much... It's been in the works a while: Original project announcement thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3816.0Article from June http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/06/freicoin-occupys-online-curren.htmlFailed Indiegogo pitch: http://www.indiegogo.com/freicoinBeta started this fall, and the chain was reset on 12-21-12 for production. It's an odd critter. It's a demurrage based currency where your coins are constantly losing 4%/year which is paid to miners as a subsidy. It's brainchild came out of the 99% movement so it's aimed at disincentivising hoarding and lowering interest rates. I don't quite get how this could work with other currencies in existence, but the slow 4% seep rate may not matter too much in the end. It may just be like bitcoin but with skewed interest rates and less desire to hold. |
|
|
|
Since this Freicoin thing apparently doesn't deal with lost coins I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion any more. I personally think Bitcoin is almost perfect as a currency how it is, except for that one little thing; lost coins. As I have stated multiple times, I don't think it's something which will absolutely lead to the downfall of Bitcoin, but as I have clearly explained there are aspects of infinite deflation which can lead to an unhealthy Bitcoin economy. Just as there are aspects of infinite inflation which can lead to an unhealthy economy, they are both fundamentally flawed.
I'm not talking about making Bitcoin an inflationary currency, if lost coins are eventually recovered we will still see price deflation because of economic growth, just as we do now even though new coins are being mined. In terms of the money supply, bitcoin should be neither deflationary nor inflationary. It should strive to maintain a stable money supply where the value of each unit is solely driven by natural market forces, and not driven by changes in the size of the money supply. Now you can disagree with me on this, but I have yet to hear any truly solid counter-argument.
I think the economics of a system which has a stable money supply is clearly superior to any money system which has an infinitely increasing or infinitely decreasing money supply. And until I hear a truly solid argument for why my economic theories are wrong in this respect, I will always argue that Bitcoin needs to be transformed into the most superior state which is built for long term robustness and economic stability. The solution to the absurdity of infinite inflation of the money supply is not infinite deflation of the money supply, in reality both fail to understand the basic premise of a stable money supply.
I agree that Freicoin is WAY different, and not really relevant. Please provide at lease SOME detail on what your basis is for stating that a stable number of coins is required. I'm still waiting for anything better than a blanket assertion. At this point I am completely unconvinced that losing some or even most BitCoins is a bad thing, as long as everyone understands that they are lost forever (or until the theoretical possibility of cracking keys allows limited reclamation.) Help me understand your basis for this belief and I will either understand your point and agree, or point out where our reasoning differs. It is possible that one of us is making a significant logic error, but refusing to talk about your reasoning is not going to help anybody. |
|
|
|
Dump all the ppc
It's possible someone else figured out the attack too and has bought that many coins to abuse the proof of stake implementation and generate another bajillion coins.
How would that vulnerability allow people to generate a bajillion coins? My understanding is it just makes it more feasible to perform double spend attacks without an enormous amount of coins. Correct, they can drive up the difficulty and revert (but not steal) others up to 5 blocks back. TacoTime is like salsa, he always likes to spice things up. Source: Jutarul has made a disclosure today of a stake generation vulnerability here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131901.0We have been aware of this vulnerability for a while. A protocol upgrade has been designed and is currently being implemented. Jutarul did not attempt to communicate with us privately before his disclosure today. We appreciate Jutarul's independent research, however given the circumstances it would be more responsible to communicate with me privately to discuss the discovered vulnerability and the schedule of disclosure. I'll give a summary of the impact here: Impact level: severe Description: The current stake generation hashing protocol is vulnerable to a search attack. Attacker gains advantage of generating more blocks with limited coins. Given the current checkpoint policy, the impact on the block chains is mostly limited to: - Attacker may invalidate other nodes' proof-of-stake blocks and force short reorganizations up to 5 blocks (may be mitigated by strengthening the checkpoint policy)
- Pushing up proof-of-stake difficulty to very high level
Given the current checkpoint policy, it is not likely that the following can be achieved by an attacker: - Preventing transactions from being confirmed.
- Minting more coins than normal through the attack.
We will accelerate the development schedule for this fix so stay tuned. I will give an update in my weekly update later this week on the progress of the release. |
|
|
|
Take an extreme case, if one person in a country own all the robot and these robot in turn make other robot to do all the work, then to whom could he sell his products? All the other people are jobless and without income, they live at social welfare level. His production will continuously shrink until it mets the demand from all the other people's consumption at lowest social welfare level, and those social welfare handouts are coming from his own production too (in tax form)
If this comes to pass you ARE the government. This is an instant autocracy, and maybe even a theocracy if you are into people worshiping you. Set the rules for the sustainment of the people that you like. Take a slightly less extreme case and you end up in an oligarchy. Take a messy, fractious bunch of folks arguing amongst themselves (like we actually have today) and play it forward to this level of technology, and we will have a messy fractious set of possible solutions being played out including some interesting communist and socialist experiments as well as markets with regulated competition, and likely at least a few oddballs or free-zones, especially if we go interplanetary. There are many solutions to this problem, and I'm sure some of them are beyond imagination today. Just because you have a machine that can make any material object does not mean an end to labor, it will not invent NEW things, create the BEST music, the most AUTHENTIC hobby/folk crafts, the most time consuming work of art, the joy of time with family, experiences in nature, trendsetting, communication, politics, travel and cultural exchange, historical, theoretical, or practical science, or any number of undertakings that define the human condition. As we have seen, a rising standard of living increases the desire for luxuries, inventing new ones will be a lucrative job in itself. Just because nobody is having to slave away in a sweatshop (at least in the neighborhood of earth...) does not mean the end of labor, simply the end of manufacturing as we know it. |
|
|
|
Personally, I've discovered in some forays into PCB assembly that one key cost factor is actually import taxes into China. You have to pay 20-30% of the value of the the CHIPS just to import them into China to get them soldered onto a board and then sent right back out of the country! So the boards that tend to be fabricated domestically are ones with very high value chips. This observation is consistent with what I saw coming off the line during my tour. While the consumer market is overrun with really cheap chips, $500-$2000 single chips certainly still exist in telecom applications.
So this guy seems way off the mark to me...
A single top of the line Virtex 7 retails for about $30k (or about $6-9k in duties per chip) so it sounds like it would really pay to stay domestic somewhere in the lower range of the chip-cost scale. Good info, thanks! (yes I know that there is a big markup, discounts and optimizations to be had, but you can only go so far) |
|
|
|
well, not exactly lost coin retrieval, but the slight fee would slowly reintroduce lost coins to circulation, or do i misunderstand how it works? listening! |
|
|
|
Time to break out the sledgehammers and bust up some looms?
I have these nifty wooden shoes we can use! |
|
|
|
This argument falls on it's face. With BitCoins you CANNOT "clearly" know that they have been "lost." There is no dusty box or other indication besides the last time the address was used. If I have placed some gold in a safe I expect it to stay there. If my great-great grandchildren re-discover and open by old safe with paper bitcoins in it, you want the gold to already be gone.
Of course you can never truly know if they are lost, however if people are given a truly fair window of time to show the network that they aren't lost I fail to see the problem. You could tell your grandchildren to make sure they they enforce their right to the coins before that window expires. And if they also want to put coins in storage for a long period of time and hand them down, they can do the same thing. It's not rocket science, nor some tedious task which needs to be repeated every year. We are talking extremely long periods of time here. ...and you ignored all the rest of my points and replied flippantly to this one. Ignored. |
|
|
|
You are proposing stealing from my pocket, or my childrens, or my grandchildrens, or...
Ok let me give you an analogy. You place some gold in a locked box and then 100 years later I find the box just sitting in some remote location covered in dust. I am going to take that box and bust it open and take the gold, because clearly some one has lost it and left it there. Now if it weren't lost, I wouldn't have the chance to find a 100 year old box covered in dust because someone would have come in, cleaned the dust of and relocated it to a more secure location, giving clear indications that the box is certainly not lost or abandoned. The fact is that anyone would have a very large chance to stop their coins from being re-mined, and if they fail to do so then the coins are fairly considered to be lost, because there are real lost coins out there which need to be found. If you happen to get caught up in that process it's you're own fault for not taking action to secure ownership of the coins within a reasonable time frame. This argument falls on it's face. With BitCoins you CANNOT "clearly" know that they have been "lost." There is no dusty box or other indication besides the last time the address was used. If I have placed some gold in a safe I expect it to stay there. If my great-great grandchildren re-discover and open by old safe with paper bitcoins in it, you want the gold to already be gone. Please explain, as you have been asked multiple times, why a STABLE NUMBER OF COINS is required in any way at all.
I have already explained throughout this thread why a stable money supply is more economically sound than infinite deflation. Infinite anything is absurd. Of course it's not necessarily an absolute necessity, but it is more economically sound and therefore superior and more desirable. No, you have not explained, you have claimed this repeatedly (and without attribution) but you have not justified these statements in any significant way. No mentions of the possible consequences or scenarios that you are testing against. You are just saying it over and over again. Since you are arguing that something which already exists should be changed, and everyone else is arguing for it to stay the same, you have the burden of proof. I'm offering you a way to convince some folks rather than just saying "should be" over and over again. There have been a large number of substantial objections raised to your idea including practicality, social contracts, existing code, design intentions, market forces, future impacts, and most importantly the immutability of transactions themselves. You are questioning the very foundations of bitcoin by proposing that transactions can EVER be undone, your burden of proof is enormous. |
|
|
|
What I mean is that Bitcoin, as it stands now, is in heavy favour of those that possess Bitcoins. What you are essentially saying by "feeing up" "lost" coins, is you want to swing it the other way BACK towards those that don't have Bitcoins yet, you want to ease some supposed deflationary spiral that will work against those that don't hold Bitcoins.
Oh here we go again with the profit argument. Yeah lets just ignore this idea of stabilizing the money supply just because you ELITE BITCOIN HOLDERS with a crap load of coins can make a profit from it.  And your logic is completely flawed anyway, because people not holding coins are hardly going to give a shit about something which will happen 100 years from now. I do in fact hold bitcoins, and quite a few of them, so this move would not be in my best interest. What I know is this, right now, my Bitcoins are MINE, not the networks, not Satoshi's or the developer's, not some government's, not the UN's, MINE. No one is saying they aren't yours. You can easily keep them if you take the effort every 100 years to show the network that those coins are still active. I mean what is so blasphemous about this if it can help stabilize the money supply. Oh the horror... You are proposing stealing from my pocket, or my childrens, or my grandchildrens, or... It DOES NOT MATTER WHEN IT HAPPENS this is still theft, destabilization, and a very, very bad idea. Please explain, as you have been asked multiple times, why a STABLE NUMBER OF COINS is required in any way at all. Your root premise is flawed as multiple people have pointed out. |
|
|
|
The beauty of Bitcoin is that it is voluntary. You can fork it and implement your idea, see how it goes.
I don't want to create a new fork of bitcoin, I have no intention to do so, nor the skills to do so. I want to make bitcoin more economically sound and stable over the very long term. Sure, the network could continue operating with only one BTC, but that is not healthy or sound in the long term. The fact this argument has been turned into some vendetta against a cartel of elite bitcoiners is absolutely ridiculous. Please explain why Bitcoin must continue indefinitely and never become a scarce commodity? Are you implying that there will never be another successful innovation in payments or money, or at the very least a BitCoin2100 with a fresh blockchain? Your insistence on the immortality of bitcoin is a fundamental logic error. At some point it will be as useless as US Confederate money, and possibly FAR more valuable as a museum piece at some point after that. I certainly don't expect 2012 USD paper bills to be traded at face value in 2265, assuming that USD means anything then. Assume that history will continue to march on and try your reasoning again. There is also the point that you appear to be willfully missing. BitCoin was created with a fixed set of rules that a lot of folks are vested in, changing those requires a consensus, so your proposal is unlikely to ever get acceptance for "BitCoin." Some other crypto-currency might like the idea though, but if you are not interested in finding some developers to work with on that, how do you expect us to take your development proposals for mainline Bitcoin seriously? You might as well give this one up, you are obviously going against consensus rather than establishing one. |
|
|
|
|
Funded and Activated.
The BTCJam guys have done a good job with the payout management as well as the payback calendar and tools.
|
|
|
|
What happens if your "loan picking" radar is off and you lose all the funds how will repay the loan?
The 1.5 BTC I'm holding in deposit on my public address will be used to repay the loan. Note, this loan is for less than 1.5BTC in TOTAL, so I'm effectively posting a 100% bond publicly. |
|
|
|
gotta check this btcjam site now finally... never understood how i can safely invest to anonymous user.
^---exactly why I'm keeping it small. It does link to otc and bitcointalk for a bit of community trust, and they have their own verification procedures for ID and such. |
|
|
|
Edit: This Loan was Funded and activated, Thanks! Original text: I've decided I want to support BTCJam in a small way, so I'm investing 1.5BTC in small loans nearing the 70% funding limit. I'm also looking for others who wish to match my participation by loaning a total of 1BTC or more to me to invest similarly. I will hold 1.5BTC in reserve in my public personal account (see vanity address) and will use it to repay the loan if needed. Because of this assurance I'm only offering 1% interest, but the term is only 30 days if you are willing to bet on a sure thing. This loan will be used to re-invest in the top loans nearing completion on BTCJam. I will be matching this loan 1:1 with my own funds as well as holding a 100% reserve in a private wallet to repay this loan in the event that any investments default.
100% Guaranteed I will pay this back*
*(unless BTCJam prevents it by closing or other disaster such as the Mayan Apocalypse, in which case I will make an effort to repay through the bitcointalk forums)
If you like the idea an want to fund my loan, please help: https://btcjam.com/listings/956 |
|
|
|
|
What happened to the PPS rate? It was .00053, not the subject line reads .000017.
Did/will payout go down by 40x?
Pool website still says 0.00053.
|
|
|
|
|
'I want to link my Bitcointalk name with BTCJam's. Verification code: 6cb8bfa3-0c30-4526-a16f-6fa63157ad4c'
|
|
|
|
|
neat idea, 6 LTC so far are nice too...
I would like more information published on where these hashes are going. Even just a brief list to start if you don't want to put up a tracker or something else more complex.
Individual statistics, and a way to pay someone out completely if they want to leave also stick out as missing, but I realize its early days.
Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
...
This updates my current hypothesis:
I think BFL (and a lot of others) are making a solid bet on the long term value of bitcoin rising. We should be able to look forward to at least 50-100% price increase in 2013, maybe much, much more. Once the hockey-stick curve comes on BTC value BFL and others want to be all spun up and ready to sell into the consumer level ASIC wars that will result.
...
If you think the price is going up, I'm pretty sure you should buy bitcoins and not bitcoin hardware... Haven't done the math in a while, but if you think there's going to be a 50-100% increase in BTC price, then buying bitcoins will make you a lot more money than buying hardware. this was true 12 months ago, this was true 6 months ago, and I think it will remain true for the next 6-12 months. That being said, I've put $5k USD into bitcoins and $5k USD into hardware b/c I believe these are slightly hedged against one another. My hardware is an investment based upon the believe that price could stay the same level (or even lower); while my bitcoin investment is based upon my belief that the price could continue to grow as adoption increases. Happy investing. I generally agree, but I'm going 4:1 because I view it as buying discounted coins on an ongoing basis, if you don't cash out the profits right away. Mining for ASIC early adopters should be able to hit 100%+ ROI within 12 months, everything after that is like a free BitCoin. (and the profits are so heavily weighted toward the front that the risk decreases as you continue to mine.) I like your last point the best, if I make 100%+ ROI at current prices (to plan) AND the price goes up 2, 3, 10, or 100 times, I'll be even more happy. Or it could be that I'm a huge geek and I could not resist the lure of the "humming boxes that make Magic Nerd Money" and helping out on a cool project. |
|
|
|
I wonder, why I have never seen any "digital currencies" -or similar- entries to their yearly updates.
Also wonder where they would put Bitcoin on their model.
Because for the most part they are funded by corporations wanting research about other corporations products. If enough Gartner subscribers or CIO's start talking about BitCoin they will start covering the market space. It would be cool to see a Gartner Magic Quadrant (TM) with BTC, LTC, etc. on it, but the number of asterisks on an annually updated report would be insane right now... Velocity will have to slow down a bit, maybe in 2014 we will see something. I know a few analysts, I'll put a bug in their ear. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
pointless, mindless trolling
