Thank you! This is exactly the answer I was looking for. Actually, I use BitcoinSpinner on my phone, and liked that the export process was so clear. I was wondering what the format was and if it would allow me to import it to other wallets. Thanks!

Now I just have to go read what the SIPA format is and who supports it.

So I understand the worry that increasing the max block size limit will make mining a professionals-only game, and eventually lead to centralization. But mining will be a professionals-only game for many reasons,  not just because of max block size. Let's not delude ourselves.

Professional-only business... Get used to it
If it leads to only a few players playing, well, what were we expecting? Each and every person with a computer to help with building the blockchain forever? There's a reason transaction fees are an integral part of the blockchain - it costs electricity - it's a business, an essential one, and not everyone wants in on this business. Give it up. Arbitrarily limiting the max block size means we don't trust the market to figure out the nitty gritty details. Let the miners deal with it.

I don't grow my food, and yet it's an absolutely most essential business that I rely on. Why don't I grow my food? Because I don't want to be a farmer... But limiting the max block size is like limiting the size of supermarkets. Make sure everyone is just hungry enough to make sure that farmers make money. It's just dumb. If miners won't make enough money then they'll stop mining and if they stop mining we'll have to start paying larger transaction fees. It's just how it works. Same thing with farming - if farmers stopped making money they'll quit and we'll simply have to pay more to get farmers back to work.


Network security! Pay those miners premiums!
Now you're saying "but if miners quit the game (which I just proved they won't) then the hashrate will drop and we'll be vulnerable!"
High hashrate is really important, I agree. Especially now that bitcoin is still hated by very big players (governments, banks, etc.) At the moment we're dumping loads of money into the mining business thanks to the block reward which is huge. I don't remember what we're currently paying miners with inflation, but there's so much money in mining now and that's why the hashrate is as high as it is. A quick back of the envelope calculation tells me that we're mining roughly ~1.3 million bitcoin/year * current mtgox price = ~$60,000,000/year at current prices. That's more than 10% of the ENTIRE BITCOIN MARKET CAP per year for miners. This is important because bitcoin is not the world's most favourite currency, so we're paying premium to keep the network safe while governments and banks still hate it. And when the market saturates (i.e. when new governments and new banks will start using bitcoin as well)? Well, then bitcoin will be the world's most favourite currency and the hashrate will be even higher. And who's gonna want to attack the world's most favourite currency?

I never understood why people are worried about bitcoin attacks after it takes over. If it took over it's because everyone wants it. And if someone has over 50% of the hashing power, they must be rich in bitcoin so why would they want to destroy it? And if they're rich in something else, it will only work if that something else is more favourable than bitcoin anyway... I don't care if bitcoin survives or not, I want to be my own bank. If the network goes down it's probably not because it's not secure, it's probably because there's something else that's better. If we're not paying enough to secure it, it's probably because there's a new/more evolved network that costs less to secure (cheaper transaction fees, yay!).


So why YES abolish the max block size?
What do users want? Secure network or a no-third-party payment system? Since I don't care if some other aternative coin takes over, to me the latter is far more important.

Here's why I can't sleep at night: if you artificially make an unregulated market more profitable than it naturally is (limiting max block size), you're making a market ripe for abuse. Off the top of my head I have two examples for this. The computer OEM market (not regulated and internationally competitive) - a deep, saturated market - is shipping millions of computers each year, even though the OEMs keep changing: some are losing money, others are rising in profit, the natural forces of supply and demand simply work. On the other hand, the "illegal" drug market (not regulated, but artificially more profitable by law), has huge drug cartels pretty much controlling the whole scene. I mean complete control as in no new business allowed (you'll be killed if you get too big) and all prices are entirely manipulated by central authorities (the drug cartels themselves). Even though anyone can grow whatever they want (decentralized) just like the drug cartels (yes, you will both still have to run away from authorities).

If we keep the max block size limit, we're making small transactions on the blockchain - be your own bank - virtually impossible on scale, and we're making the mining business way more profitable than in needs to be and we'll get miner cartels. This scares me.

I yearn for noob-friendliness as well... Does it have that?



Wow! I did not know that, that's great! I mean, it's still vulnerable to keyloggers, etc. but I guess anything PC-based is... And if the site is hacked and the code changed...?? I need to look at this browser extension.

Exactly, the question is which apps let me export/see my private keys in plaintext or some standard format. Backwards-compatible only works if you know how old software works. In this case, we need future-proof to be backwards-compatible.

That's a real shame. If bitcoin is to gain traction, it needs noob-friendly solutions. And they better be open source or else we'll have wallets stolen and trust lost. So far, I think I'll start recommending using blockchain.info just because it's the most user friendly (and at the same time feature packed if you're looking for it). It's clean, simple, and has both web and mobile (I assume they're synced) and has many options for backing up / exporting private keys.

The only thing is I have no idea who operates the site and if they're trustworthy. My guess, as naive as it may be, is the common "it's not in [service]'s interest to give bitcoin a bad rap, seeing as they are a big bitcoin player"... That doesn't usually work for me, but I guess that's what I can recommend at the moment...

That's a hard question. That's like guessing what the current exchange rate will be in five years. It really depends on how it unfolds, how people use it, etc. One thing I can be quite sure is that there won't be a point when the rich will just go "oh fuck it, let them have their way". They will take every last measure before giving up the old way which got them their wealth.


Easy. You don't have to transfer your current wealth stored in fiat in order to get bitcoin. Simply start working for BTC. The same way you got your fiat. When government makes it illegal to trade fiat for BTC, that's when either fiat or BTC start losing their worth (my guess is that by the time the governments realize this, fiat will already be on a steep downward slope).

No.

Should market cap include speculative prices? No.

The market cap is calculated by current price. Price is subject to supply and demand. Note that supply does not include all to-be-mined coins.

Wikipedia is redirecting "blockchain" to "play money".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Block-chain_and_confirmations

If I'm already here, and actually managed to skim through the philosophical debate (how did that happen?) I might as well add my 2 satoshis.

Meni may not know me personally, but I bought a significant amount of bitcoins through his site on two occasions and I am a happy customer. Markup is significant, but all in all excellent service. Thank you! Will buy again.


As for anyone interested in anyone else's personal opinion about the Israeli geopolitical position today in regards to other nation's geopolitical position, I would recommend considering that geopolitical positions may, just may, be a result of psychopaths in very influential positions and less of individuals of the public. I am in no way vouching for role of the Israeli public in whatever you may see as right or more probably wrong with the current situation, but I wouldn't consider the many Americans who vote for the federal government really at fault for anything that happened or currently happening in dozens of American-war-ridden countries around the world over the last several decades. Seriously, these things are larger than individuals.

I may have a personal vendetta against any individual Nazi in WWII-era Germany, but I wouldn't take it as seriously as some seem to take it here. If he weren't in Nazi Germany he would probably be torturing small animals and be just as much of an asshole, and I would have just as much of a vendetta. Even if anyone were to believe that Meni is a full-on Israeli oppressor, why isn't anyone asking Meni if he tortures small animals? Is his opinion in the geopolitical game any more relevant?

Cold storage, air gapped and paper wallets are not for noobs looking for their first client.

I'm aware of security measures to secure your wallet. What I'm looking for is a future-proof and noob-friendly client.

So I have a few friends who are interested in buying bitcoin. After disclaiming caution I get stuck with recommending a client. I'm aware of the choice in clients, however what I'm not sure about (and I must say is not clearly documented) is on top of the ability to make backups of private keys - how these backups are made. Most importantly, will noobs be able to easily transfer their private keys between clients?

I assume many clients make password protected backups (with some sort of encryption), which would likely not be compatible with the restore or import feature of a different client. Unless private keys can be exported in plaintext or using a standard password protection method, is there an easy way to make backups in existing clients that you can be sure will be importable in the future?

What most people tend to miss is that all relative nominal prices are arbitrary. In other words, the fact that commodities today cost more nominal currency that they did 30 years ago doesn't scare people as much as bitcoin is currently rising. But if bitcoins are expensive, people will demand more work for bitcoin or less bitcoin for work.


True, the market is growing, and hasn't reached it's highest potential saturation yet apparently. I, among many here believe that it will blow way further. The one advantage fiat has over bitcoin is that it is a smoother transition because it is enforced in one go on an entire population. Bitcoin can't offer that luxury. However, when the bitcoin economy saturates, it's prices will be inherently more stable than recklessly minted fiat. Fiat money has a tendency to overshoot inflation (and many times even hyper inflate). Except with bitcoin the tendency is more stable, and reversed, which clearly the better direction (unless you are a proponent of systematic theft). When saturated, the bitcoin monetary base will represent more or less the value of all goods traded with it, which is exactly what minting fiat is supposed to achieve and fails. Considering how people today have to adjust prices to a constantly devalued currency, I don't see why we couldn't deal with it when bitcoin stabilizes.

Besides, if changing prices worry us, lets think of new-age methods for measuring inflation/deflation rates that can be applied to bitcoin. So far most people/systems get these measured for their fiat from extremely biased sources (those who print the money) with stuff like the CPI.

Edit: it's worth looking at this related topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=142877.0;all

I'm pretty sure I can post an article to the internet without leaving any trace. As good as your intel may be, what possible digital paper trail could you not avoid leaving behind?

How about this for some perspective. The current bitcoin economy is somewhere between Micronesia's and Tonga's total GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)). We're not even talking about a tiny part of the global economy, we're talking about a tiny part of a tiny country's economy.

I'm gonna rant a little, kind of share what my imagination has been conjuring lately...

I tend to believe that the network effect of bitcoin is it's strongest and most vulnerable point. The more people use it, the more people use it - and the less people use it, the less people use it. On the one hand, if it doesn't stick well with people, it will have a very very hard time gaining traction. On the other hand, if it does start catching on significantly, it won't stop. That's why I think it will follow a classical exponential adoption rate.

I'm not going to say that I expect bitcoin to take over the world economy, but since there is a [variable] hard limit to the size of the bitcoin economy at full saturation (theoretically the global economy), we will see a very clear "log phase" in a market cap graph as seen with, e.g. bacterial growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_growth). When the bitcoin economy reaches full saturation, everything from 2009 until today will look like a straight line, because the market cap will be many, many orders of magnitude larger than today.

Edit: I will add that having more than one medium of trade is not fun. If everyone is buying and selling in bitcoin, you are more likely to sell and buy in bitcoin respectively.

I believe bitcoin's most interesting phase is most definitely not this one. I believe bitcoin will catch on in exponential fashion. That is to say, the jump from the Marshal Islands to Micronesia (roughly four weeks) will take around the same time as the jump from the UK to China. I kind of imagine adoption rate to be somewhat similar to Facebook's, except bitcoin might have a sharper exponential rate.
http://bylimedesign.com/facebook_histodical_users.png

The downside is that the transition will be harsh. And I mean dire. Governments will not take this lightly. Taxation is a bitch with bitcoin. Central banks won't either. Bitcoin is not fiat. And since both are tied to each other for survival the way things are currently run around the world, and considering both will probably use whatever means necessary to avoid competing with bitcoin directly, I believe violent means will not be passed over... Bitcoin will be fought in similar tactics as p2p file sharing was/is fought by the record label industry. Idiotically. However, as dinosaur as fiat may be in the face of bitcoin, this war will be orders of magnitude larger than that of the record label industry. And the means will be orders of magnitude more fierce.

That "log phase" will be the defining moment. That's when the public will decide if bitcoin is here to stay. If you think today the bitcoin is volatile, imagine the events that will influence bitcoin when Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq-scale war will be waged to keep business as usual in western civilization? On the other hand, how do you take down a Facebook with out any central servers or operators?

Another one from Z1Xwitch:



Edit: wanted to add the source, http://z1x.dk/page/4/

Decided to search google. A few topics from bitcointalk came up. Most are terribly not funny. This one is my favourite so far.

I actually think it's most likely this Satoshi guy kept his identity secret exactly because the "elites" can't quite do most of what you envision. If I were the writer of such a competitive currency potentially capable of overthrowing not only governments, but whole forms of government, I would seriously consider never identifying myself ever again.

As much as I love seeing the price point rise, I'm afraid of a bubble. There's no need for the price to rise so quickly. In fact, there should be little focus on the price point.

The focus should be on the actual economy. In order for this to not be a bubble, there needs to be an economy to back this up, as in, more people and businesses should be trading in bitcoin, and the price rises accordingly. If big media attention brings loads of speculators to bitcoin without plans to actually use bitcoin as a medium of exchange, then a bubble is quite likely.

Downplay the price, and focus on the economy.

Edit: if people come because of the price to use bitcoin as a medium of exchange, then that's good. It's a swarm of speculators that I'm worried about. But I have a feeling people are more likely to use a currency as a medium of exchange if they hear about merchants using it, rather than price hikes.

And yet, somehow when the hash rate went down nobody successfully attacked the network. What's your point? How does this have to do with decentralization?

Yeah, how did you miss my entire post (and previous ones)? I refer to each and every thing you mention here. Why do high fees lead to a secure network and decentralized mining? I don't even think network security necessarily correlates with decentralization.

I'm making a point to the opposite, and I even explain how to prove me wrong. Here's a short-bus explanation:

Small max block size: High fees, high motivation for abuse, centralization (I even provide an example)

Large max block size: Low fees, low motivation for abuse, no monopoly (I even provide an example)