|
It seems to me from my limited knowledge that these are the two new competitors to bitcoin and I was wondering which one had more advantages over the other.
Mainly I'm wondering about the underlying technology, i.e. NXT vs CryptoNote. Which one has a better chance of becoming a successful alternative to btc/ltc?
Are there any glaring problems in either technology that I should know about?
How about the dev teams? Are both technologies supported by a robust and active development team?
People's main argument in favour of bitcoin is that bitcoin can always add whatever features are implemented on altcoins. But from what I can tell bitcoin is the old dinosaur very resistant to change and anything but agile. Bitcoin doesn't even seem to be interested in addressing the problems that it has, let alone adding new features or upgrades.
So what features really stand out about either technology?
Does anyone feel that either codebase is objectively better than bitcoin? Or are we not quite there yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Does dankgang protect it's members from physical violence? What about financially? Does dankgang provide for its members financially(perhaps from the Dank Bank...)?
Does dankgang carry out any money making activities to fund the organization?
|
|
|
|
So, how does it benefit us?
We will have programs who can act as believable human customer support representatives at some point. Also I'm sure there will be AI that people become friendly with in some way. Personal assistants will become much better than they are now(Siri ect). |
|
|
|
|
There are no perscription psychedelics. And there are no psychedelic opiates unless you count ibogaine.
|
|
|
|
I'm getting the fee from Electrum which is currently 0.0002. Electrum is the best option for most use cases in my opinion. Although, the higher mandated fee does make it less attractive.
Electrum shouldn't be charging a higher fee than other clients. Bitcoin fees are per KB so if you have a tx which is 2x as large (size not value) then it is going to be 2x the fee of one under a 1KB. You can override electrum suggested fee both on the transaction level and the default settings. I usually send with 0 fees with electrum unless amount is tiny. I was curious how this is done so I started a new topic regarding this in the Electrum subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=644533.msg7199730#msg7199730Feel free to explain if you have the time. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Someone mentioned in another thread that they override the default fee in Electrum and send most transactions without a fee. I'm not sure how to do this. Would anyone mind explaining?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
maybe the developers need to add code to throttle nodes that start to encroach on the 50% mark.
Exactly the kind of micromanagement that will kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this particular idea is a solution or not, but the alternative is doing nothing and killing bitcoin through lack of management. |
|
|
|
cambodia's population is so small though, something like 10 million. that leaves a small portion of the young people (or those who know how to use computer technology). i think they travel often to vietnam for whatever is lacking in their needs.
Actually there's a huge amount of young people because so many old people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. |
|
|
|
Would just waiting for a larger number of confirmations defeat the attempts at double spending?
Like instead of the standard 6, instead wait for 8, 10, 12? Whatever the safe amount would be so that there would be enough blocks solved by different independent sources. Or am I missing something here and that wouldn't be a solution to the problem...
As has already been pointed out, someone with more than 50% of the total bitcoin network hashing power (in other words, more hashing power than the entire combined rest of the bitcoin network), then they have a better than 50% chance of solving the next block. If they fail to find the next block fast enough, then they can ignore the block that the rest of the network is working and, and continue on their own block. They still have a better than 50% chance of solving their block before the network moves on to yet another. Because their probability is better, sooner or later, they will solve enough blocks in a row to create a chain longer than the one they are trying to replace. The higher above 50% they have, the faster they'll be able to get such a chain of blocks. Once their chain is longer, their chain replaces the existing one. Any transactions that were confirmed in any of the replaced blocks that aren't also in the attacker's blocks immediately become unconfirmed. If the attacker spends any outputs in his blocks that were spent elsewhere in the chain being replaced, then those transactions in the replaced blocks don't just become unconfirmed, they also become invalid and they disappear. They can start their attack chain many blocks before paying you. Therefore, no matter how many confirmations you want to wait for, they can make sure that they have a long enough chain to broadcast once you've accepted the payment. Thanks to both of you for your explanations. The damage that can be done with a >50% attack is pretty big. It's a lot worse than I had originally assumed. I'm surprised it's not more of an issue in the community. |
|
|
|
*in practice* -- none. i'm from california (usa), los angeles specifically. the police here are cowboys. they do what they want, they write up the report the way they want, and all the other cops look the other way. i've seen some horrible things that cops have done. once saw a county sheriff's deputy nearly beat a man to death 5-6 years ago.
Yeah, LA have cops do not have a good reputation at all. *in practice* -- none. i'm from california (usa), los angeles specifically. the police here are cowboys. they do what they want, they write up the report the way they want, and all the other cops look the other way. i've seen some horrible things that cops have done. once saw a county sheriff's deputy nearly beat a man to death 5-6 years ago.
Rodney King. Look it up. 34 shots to the head -Jamie If he's from LA I'm sure he's quite familiar with Rodney King  But for those unaware of what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King |
|
|
|
The sad thing is that there is a good chance they will reach 51% because of apathetic miners who will stay with the pool and just expect the other guy to leave.
The thing is that it's quite possible they will just shift mining power outside of Ghash.io and still have over 50% but not have it show up that way on blockchain.info or anywhere else that tracks those statistics. It might be happening now, but who knows really. This should be a much bigger issue than it is. BTC Guild already set the standard for how a pool should act under these circumstances, it would be good to see Ghash follow their lead. |
|
|
|
I heard that alot of people were having issues launching the game and many got huge framerate drops when doing simple things like driving. So in it's current state it's an unoptimised piece of poop.  Which is quite unexcusable considering the launch was delayed for like 8 months because they were afraid to compete with the launch of GTA 5. |
|
|
|
In terms of USD value are transaction fees going to get more expensive over time? At ~13 cents USD they're pretty high for transactions under $10. Where do you get $0.13 from? The average tx is <1KB and the min fee to relay for v0.8+ is 0.1 mBTC which is ~$0.06. That is falling to 0.01 mBTC in v0.9+ which is more like $0.006. Now this doesn't affect me personally. But we see a lot of talk about bitcoin helping out the unbanked, and bringing bitcoin to Africa and such, and higher transaction fees are really going to limit bitcoin's potential in certain markets. Fees are even higher for the unbanked. mPesa which is probably the most successful private payment network is Africa is about 5x the cost of Bitcoin to transaction $10l. I'm getting the fee from Electrum which is currently 0.0002. Electrum is the best option for most use cases in my opinion. Although, the higher mandated fee does make it less attractive. |
|
|
|
The truth is that proof of work leads inevitably to a single hasher-pleasing dominant mining pool. The hashers have sufficient trust in that pool to permit a 51% attack, that hashers think is not a threat. Hashers have observed that the pools are well behaved, and those pools are efficient due to competition. The dominant pools knows that if there is misbehavior they will be possibly ruined by deserting hashers.
Thus proof-of-work as a means to secure the Bitcoin blockchain now fails Satoshi's design of a system in which there is no trusted third party. .
I suggest a better system in a discussion thread elsewhere on this forum.
There's probably too much money and power invested in the PoW infrastructure at this point for any real progress to be made. I appreciate what you're doing personally, but bitcoin is becoming an old dinosaur incapable of change or self criticism. |
|
|
|
PC master race represent. As usual, nobody mentions Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. I really don't get why it has so little players - it's the most innovative and fun FPS to come out in quite a while. Super high skill cap, incredibly fun and high re-playability.
As for RPGs I hope you guys played Dark Souls 2. My favorite RPG experience in quite a while.
I tried out Chivalry on Steam when they had the free weekend recently. I thought it was pretty good from playing the training exercise. I didn't get to play the multiplayer though. I would have been destroyed anyway lol. |
|
|
|
Fees are useful to prevent spam on the blockchain. Without fees, or with very low fees, blockchain would be too big for most people.
I think a fraction of a cent is probably enough to deter spammers from sending too much dust. As far as the blockchain goes, it's already quite big and at this point most people are going to be better served using Electrum for a number of reasons. Of course the community should still try to have as many full nodes as they can going, but the average user is not going to be running a full node. |
|
|
|
Yeah the adword is still up as of this morning early, I did an inspection of the ad and it looks like it sends you straight to another site. I must have clicked on it sometime late at night or something because well obviously now I don't have that BTC. I guess that'll teach me not to trust links I click.
Oh, thats not good that google still has it up. And sorry about what happened to you. As far as phishing attacks go this one is a pretty good one I think. Being the first result on a google search that says it's taking you to www.blockchain.info is something that's going to trap a lot of people for sure. |
|
|
|
We need a usable p2pool software so that everyone starts mining. It's the only way, we need decentralized mining. We need it easy to install & configure, clean and with intuitive gui.
You still need ASICs do mine now through. And you can't expect everyone to purchase chips and boards that become outdated in two months. The mining part of bitcoin has definitely veered off course from it's original intention. yes. And think about what will happen in 5 years. Maybe only 4 companys will control it and beginning only to accept transaction from ppl who have a registered adress giving them from their gov. ....as more I think about these stuff....o_0 That's actually a really interesting hypothetical. I've never heard or thought of something like that before. What would happen if the government did go after mining pools in someway? Forcing them to reject certain transactions. It could start with terrorism, or drugs, and then lead to who knows what. I guess the easy answer would be to have mining pools operating out of friendly countries, but who knows how many of those, if any, there will be. I'm not paranoid, nor do I think this is necessarily likely, but it's something that does not seem outside the realm of possibility. |
|
|
|
As I said before , miners will reduce fees when they notice that lesser people are offering those fees.
The propogation of a transaction should be treated like any service , whose price is decided by demand.
If there are too high fees , with nobody willing to accept the fees , they will reduce over time as miners realise that they would earn more with more transactions.
At this point though will most miners even notice, or care? The transaction fees are minimal compared to the block reward. I could see it being ignored even if transaction volume was dropping. The problem is that miners might not even know what they are potentially missing. For example if miners agreed to cap fees at one penny and that helped spread adoption worldwide(and thus raising the price of bitcoin) they might actually make more money. But if miners are only focused on the short term optimization of profits via supply and demand with transaction fees then they might miss a long term opportunity to grow bitcoin. Now is the time to forgo minor profits for potential growth. The block reward is still very large and nickeling and diming people in the early stages of bitcoin can't possibly have more benefit than maximising the chance for people around the world to adopt bitcoin. And the only way it's going to happen is if miners decide as a group that it's in their best interest to charge less fees. Lowering transaction fees doesn't automatically guarantee that bitcoin is going to be adopted by groups that are resistant to using bitcoin because of the standard transaction fee. But we do know that for certain people and for certain sizes of transactions the fees are a barrier and they are a problem that can be solved. Removing the barrier is just one step in increasing the probability that more people can use bitcoin. Of course people can try to send their transactions with any fee they want but in the current market very few miners will bother processing those transactions which makes bitcoin not worth using for those attempting to circumvent fees. |
|
|
|
We need a usable p2pool software so that everyone starts mining. It's the only way, we need decentralized mining. We need it easy to install & configure, clean and with intuitive gui.
You still need ASICs do mine now through. And you can't expect everyone to purchase chips and boards that become outdated in two months. The mining part of bitcoin has definitely veered off course from it's original intention. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
