Go an learn about extensive and intensive units first.
Economics: there is just no useful metric because all known underlyings are not stable.
I clearly know more about this subject than you. And so does nash: The metric system does not work because french chefs de cuisine are constantly cooking up new and delicious culinary creations which the rest of the world then follows imitatively. Rather, it works because it is something invented on a scientific basis…
Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.
…this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…
I'd like the general community to take note of this posters' reaction in the face truth, and a well founded argument. They are not a scientist, and they don't see the validity in source documents. I have read Szabo, Hayek, Nash, and Smith. You have not read anything. Haha too good. And you are not even close to achieve anything. So what does it teach to you know? You read. I already know. |
|
|
|
What is a stable unit of value to be called? A watt, Celsius, Fahrenheit, Newton?
Go an learn about extensive and intensive units first. Economics: there is just no useful metric because all known underlyings are not stable. |
|
|
|
Don t forget the security from PoW, network effects and the velocity, last one is related to the 1MB limit. Although important, none of those are related to archetypal fidelity. They are technology factors. You can't compromise authenticity for those because authenticity is something that's not replaceable once lost. Technology factors are. You cannot really divide live from body, things are complex. |
|
|
|
Not seeing how your analogy is apt whatsoever, sorry.
Blocksize and bitcoin scarcity are two completely different things. I didn't say scarceity is what makes Bitcoin valuable, I said "authenticity" did. Scarecity doesn't make anything valuable. Lots of things are scarce. You can produce an altcoin tomorrow that's "scarce". It will go to zero if that's the only monetary property it has. Don t forget the security from PoW, network effects and the velocity, last one is related to the 1MB limit. |
|
|
|
I m sure that greed will solve this in some months. The bounty in the mempools is just too attractive. So miners might launch some 10k nodes out of nowhere and might fork to BU or whatever... But who dares to predict the future?
That's why we need to talk about Ideal Money. Because it is the rational founded argument for guarding bitcoin's properties as a gold (which miners are quite happy to do in general because the fees will stay high). I am attempting to speak to rational sincere and influential members of the community. And most of them are unreachable and think the introduction of Nash's argument is a joke (hint: who is the joke?). Here we are again. You do not talk in Chinese, that would be near to ideal. Fully ideal in terms of what you try to achieve would be to talk in hashpower, means , try running 51% of the miners and you are heared. I wish you all the best. |
|
|
|
If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties. Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability". You'll have to explain how you came to this conclusion, please. Cos it's a bit like saying..."hey, this gold's a bit heavy. It's a PITA to carry around and I'm always having to buy new trousers cos the pockets get holes from my coins. Lets just hardfork it and mix it with some aluminium so it's more convenient." Over time, if the market values something as a monetary asset rather than a tech-stock then the above analogy increasingly applies. Maybe if Bitcoin had raised the blocksize back in 2010 they might have got away with it but I'd say it's too late now. I m sure that greed will solve this in some months. The bounty in the mempools is just too attractive. So miners might launch some 10k nodes out of nowhere and might fork to BU or whatever... But who dares to predict the future? |
|
|
|
that author mentions Calvin Ayre
Ayre is a gambling and casino BILLIONAIRE
Casinos have a porblem
that is US players coming in and out and being paid.
Bitcoin is the PERFECT solution
wright has made himseklf look a joke publically.
What nobdy knows is that wright LIKES privacy
Wght designs online games
Poker.
Casinos.
Wright was doing this in the 90s
Wright was the one that managed the systems and security for Lasseters - the FIRST online casino
the trick with magic is to have people look away from where you want them to
The US puts people into jail for gambling operations
wright can still develop underground poker systems
payment systems in bitcoin
casinos
gambling
EVEN if the world thinks he is a fraud
because the ONLY part of the world HE cares about know what he does.
If you move money for casinos
if you code casinos that have US citizens using bitcoin
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE IN THE MEDIA
or would you make yourself a public fool to be rich and powerful BEHIND the curtain....,
He must be really pissed now, since cost of moving grows exponetial...not as planned? |
|
|
|
You dream of sth ideal that only exists in theory like an ideal gas. There is no ideal in real.
So you are suggesting that 20 years of writing and talks by John Nash is irrelevant because you say so? Have you ever thought you are just ignorant maybe? Nash was a pretty smart guy you know... Maybe, just maybe, he deserves a peak at his work before you open your mouth about it? You are not a scientist either, but I am looking for one. One that will read the source material before saying something stupid and ignorant about it. You ve found Nash. Put your energy into sth real than you might stop ranting and earn some honor. |
|
|
|
Core needs to change its mandate to the facilitation of the levation of ideal money. Not the idealization of bitcoin that is irresponsible.
And we need SCIENTISTS that understand science.
I very hope you are aware that science is only a very poor projection from reality into our very limited human brain? Even the best and stricted science = math is not even close to explain real life. You dream of sth ideal that only exists in theory like an ideal gas. There is no ideal in real. We are dammed to try and experiment and let nature do its work by Darwinism. Maybe the mixture of all currencies we have incl gold IS close to the ideal. Everybody can decide how much to diversify ( in an ideal political env...). You can not just fix things from above, you are part of huge community and are dammed to play your role as theoretical 'scientist'. I m happy we have experienced engineers in control. |
|
|
|
I never knew about attack blocks.
lol now learn about orphans and consensus. attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed This is again part of some fear and smear campain we see these days HF: Evil (pls ignore or bann things we could learn from alts like Monero or ETH = top alts with HFs...) Orphaning : Attack ( pls ignore again that bitcoin runs with that for 8 years and alts like ETH have made use of the orphanes = uncles) Pls let rain some brain! |
|
|
|
The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?
We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN. But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.  Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption. Blocklimits are useless, segwit is useful. Get rid of blocksize limit and implement segwit. Easy If we got rid of the blocksize limit, what would be the benefit of segwit? That s the thing. Think big and do all we can and let the market decide what is useful and safe. |
|
|
|
Neee , Gold, USD und EUR brechen ein. Tztztz |
|
|
|
Gox gebrochen. Jetzt ist also endgültig und unmissverständlich ATH.
Jep - Widerstand : Sky |
|
|
|
Hab ich grad aufgeschnappt:
Mutmaßlicher Erfinder will Bitcoin-Technologie patentieren lassen - Reuters News
02-Mar-2017 15:18:27
Frankfurt, 02. Mrz (Reuters) - Der mutmaßliche BitcoinBTC=BTSP-Erfinder will sich die Online-Währung und die zugrundeliegende sogenannte Blockchain-Technologie patentieren lassen. Der australische Computer-Experte Craig Wright hat in Großbritannien mehr als 70 Patente angemeldet, wie aus Unterlagen hervorgeht, die Reuters einsehen konnte. Personen aus Wrights Umfeld zufolge sollen es bis zu 400 Anträge werden. Bislang wurde aber noch kein Patent erteilt.
Schutzrechte auf Blockchain könnten es Banken erschweren, diese Verschlüsselungstechnologie für ihr Geschäft zu nutzen. So experimentiert die Deutsche BankDBKGn.DE in Zusammenarbeit mit der britischen HSBCHSBA.L und anderen Instituten mit Handelsfinanzierungen via Blockchain . Außerdem arbeiten zahlreiche Geldhäuser an eigenen Cyber-Währungen. Die Deutsche BörseDB1Gn.DE will diese Technologie bei Wertpapiergeschäften nutzen .
Wright gab sich 2016 in einem TV-Interview als Mann hinter dem Erfinder-Pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto zu erkennen. Es ist aber unklar, ob der Australier wirklich Bitcoin entwickelt hat. Die Patentanträge deuten allerdings auf tiefes Wissen über die Funktionsweise von Blockchain hin.
Cyber-Währungen wie Bitcoin, Ethereum oder Ripple unterliegen keiner staatlichen Kontrolle. Ihren Kurs bestimmen lediglich Angebot und Nachfrage. Da sie sekundenschnell, sicher verschlüsselt und anonym weltweit eingesetzt werden können, sind sie unter anderem bei Online-Glücksspielern beliebt. Außerdem machen Bitcoin & Co. im Zusammenhang mit Waffenschieberein oder Drogengeschäften immer wieder Schlagzeilen.
http://de.reuters.com/article/mrkte-bitcoin-idDEL5N1GF59F |
|
|
|
You do not know anything - poor mate. 'Saint' can be called s.o. who is already dead ... banned is not enough.  @hv_ Were you born this stupid, or do you have to work at it.   FYI: It was used as a form of parody, Dufus.  Implying that CB Worships G.Maxwell believing all of his lies as gospel. I'm just PoSting this shit to match your quality expectations - no PoW needed for you . sorry |
|
|
|
How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
Switching to POS = centralization... i always wonder how pos coins handle block limit? and transaction getting stuck? they have the same issue as a pow right? or maybe not because confirmation and fee go to everyone, who is minting because they are the mienrs, i would like to have an explanation on this thanks Transactions are not getting stuck on any of the Alts, because they all have multiple times the Transaction Capacity of BitCrap. And can easily handle what is currently crashing BTC. LTC (for the PoW lovers) has 4X the capacity of BTC ZEIT (PoST) has 20X the capacity of BTC. And it is all due to the fact we both have faster block speeds. .... and market cap = trust ? Market cap = current manipulation Do you really believe this product that has declined in usability has actually increased in value and stabilized at the ~ price of gold. China is playing you guys for fools. Artificial Price Manipulation is not a technological innovation, a lot of you are going to learn this lesson the hard way.  FYI: One reason so many of you are so easy fooled , is that you do not compartmentalize. You associate Price with Technical Superiority and this causes you to make foolish choices. The 'usability' is getting now more and more like gold - it's more scarce, more secure, costly to dig and sadly getting close to 'heavy to move' as gold... |
|
|
|
SegWit per se may not be dangerous, but it could open doors for the privatization of Bitcoin. This could make Bitcoin controllable by few and goes against one of the main principals of Bitcoin. 1. Validation attacks on blocks more than 1 MB mean Segwit is needed before any blocksize increases2. Segwit increases the blocksize to 4MB anyway Actually it would make more sense to increase the blocksize First before ever adding segwit. Your Saint G.Maxwell has been quoted in the past saying blocksize increases would be needed after segwit. You do not know anything - poor mate. 'Saint' can be called s.o. who is already dead ... banned is not enough. |
|
|
|
How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
Switching to POS = centralization... i always wonder how pos coins handle block limit? and transaction getting stuck? they have the same issue as a pow right? or maybe not because confirmation and fee go to everyone, who is minting because they are the mienrs, i would like to have an explanation on this thanks Transactions are not getting stuck on any of the Alts, because they all have multiple times the Transaction Capacity of BitCrap. And can easily handle what is currently crashing BTC. LTC (for the PoW lovers) has 4X the capacity of BTC ZEIT (PoST) has 20X the capacity of BTC. And it is all due to the fact we both have faster block speeds. .... and market cap = trust ? |
|
|
|
How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
What the hell is an Ethereim? How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
Switching to POS = centralization... Isn't it the other way around? Take Bitcoin as prime example, most of the hashrate centralized in China due to cheap electricity cost. In PoS there is no electricity cost which means that the network won't only be centralized in places with cheap electricity but can be anywhere -> decentralization. To answer OP's question, in very basic terms. Ethere um uses the same concept as Bitcoin Unlimited = the miners choose how big the blocks are. Not really. PoS = big stakeholders rule, also, PoS is way more insecure than PoW. Nothing tops the security of bitcoin's PoW network with his huge hashing rate. Ethereum = banksters coin. Now big pocketed banks will call the shots. BU just doesn't work, that's why it will never get anywhere. Bitcoin Core is the best we got nowadays objectively. Sure it sucks that china has cheap ass electricity which makes them big players in the mining game, specially when we have that Jihan idiot blocking segwit, but can we do? They still have to deal with the other parties (nodes, merchants, and wallet developers) In BUcoin model, miners rule. In ETHcoin model, banksters rule. Chinese Mining Pools have a Combined 67% of BTC mining for over a year, The only security BTC has is what they grant it, since they can rewrite the last 12 hours of the blockchain on a whim. PoW is not secure, it has larger #s , but those #s are pointless due to a 51% attack. PoS is much more secure, that is why ETH is switching. Oh no - not again - you lost all this discussion about Poor Org Shit so many times now. Security in open internet comes from work, not from bank like ownership. |
|
|
|
Tether is aber nicht dezentralisert sondern ne Ami firma wenn die ihre website schließen ist Tehter tot .
zu risky als Store of value
Deswegen: Short Tether is ok / recommended. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
