"uh, Janet, we got a problem..."  |
|
|
|
good.
not a single fuck is given.
I sure hope you know when to fold before you get wiped out. Don't let your fetish for bears be your denial of changing times when it comes. why do people keep saying that to me, when I am making like 1000 % in profits from it? why dont you, for a change, do your own business? prepare to have them taken away. you will hack my bank account? no, prepare for the short squeeze of the century. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap.  this is going to be beautiful. I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money". Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good? also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada...That's exactly my point. Banks will never use the bitcoin blockchain for several reasons. Now, can you guys answer my previous question? "I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money". Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good?" if your question is are they free to join the fun? answer: yes. if your question is can they mold Bitcoin to their own definition? answer: no. if your question is will they make money doing what's been described in the article? answer: no in fact, they should be prepared to lose lots of money doing what they plan to do in the article. |
|
|
|
good.
not a single fuck is given.
I sure hope you know when to fold before you get wiped out. Don't let your fetish for bears be your denial of changing times when it comes. why do people keep saying that to me, when I am making like 1000 % in profits from it? why dont you, for a change, do your own business? prepare to have them taken away. |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. this is going to be beautiful. I thought bitcoin was supposed to be anti-banking/fiat "Honest Money". Now bankers are free to join the fun so it's all good? also, i thought that the trolls said that banksters couldn't give a hoot about Bitcoin? it's too small, too geeky, no one wants decentralization, banksters are pure, yada, yada... |
|
|
|
$dxy continuing to roll:  TLT rolling too:  there is one other theory out there and it goes like this: everything goes down except Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...This is probably what caused that spike on btc-e a few days ago.
What's causing the continuous downward slide for the past year and a half tho? normal market volatility. we've seen it many times before. |
|
|
|
Poll needs an option for market-set limit
that's what "no limit" refers to. |
|
|
|
just to memorialize the results of last poll:  |
|
|
|
continuing to look the hell out:  |
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/how-bitcoin-is-disrupting-argentinas-economy.html?_r=0"JPMorgan belongs to an association of big banks, the Clearing House, that has been confidentially putting together a “proof of concept” for a decentralized ledger, or blockchain, that would run on the computers of all the participating banks. According to people involved, this network, which is still in the conceptual phase, could allow instant transfers between accounts at all the member banks and eliminate the current risks involved in having billions of dollars in limbo for days at a time. For many bankers, the most valuable potential use of the blockchain is not small payments but very large ones, which account for the vast majority of the money moving around the world each day. The banks, though, are moving slowly, even as several start-ups are trying to use the Bitcoin blockchain to do the same thing on a global basis, cutting out the banks altogether."When they inevitably realize that the only truly secure, decentralized blockchain is the original, well, you can't move "very large payments" with a 3.5 billion dollar marketcap. this is going to be beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
As am archival full node operator, I appreciate the deeper understanding I'm getting from this discussion.
just in the last couple of days I have been renegotiating my yearly vps contracts serving up full nodes. My specs were 2GB RAM and 60GB disk space. From past experience I didn't want to increase my rate but wanted to decrease RAM to 1GB and increase disk to 100GB for future growth in the next year. I have about 1GB swap RAM which allows me to do this. After some back and forth with the sales manager they agreed. It's my intention to always be there with archival node service, if not via multiple paid vps service, at least with single home and business service.
I really like this utxo discussion. It's been helpful.
|
|
|
|
nothing new, it seems at this point the reality could simply go beyond the fiction. at least for quite a while. just look at varoufakis exiting negociations by the small door. I disagree, what is novel here is a mainstream financial editor/writer willing to threaten the centralbank mind-control mantra and say specifically, "This is really, really, f$#%ed up". Fiat money is based purely on perception and Keynesians write papers on "behavioral economics" that fuel the manipulations, jaw-boning, market operations, etc that target price controls. If the illusion begins to dissolve it is over, that is how fragile the current situation is. What would a meltdown mean for Bitcoin? I know a lot of people think it would mean down. I, otoh, think it would mean a massive UP for Bitcoin. Just the way the charts are aligned right now tells me this. We've had an inexplicable 1.5 year decline in the price despite all sorts of good news. Yet we're down 90% or so while the stock market is way up at all time highs from money pumping and what looks like a top to me. There's no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin is an alternative to everything fiat. |
|
|
|
don't UTXO sets differ slightly just like the mempools unconfirmed tx's?
No. The state of the Bitcoin ledger as of each Bitcoin block corresponds to exactly one correct UTXO set. then it seems that there is no need to hash the UTXO set into the current block. we aren't doing that now and it works. |
|
|
|
Yes, it only applies to thin clients. A full client calculates the UTXO set and Merkle hash from the complete history, compares it to a new block's UTXO hash and rejects the block if they don't match.
how is this practical? don't UTXO sets differ slightly just like the mempools unconfirmed tx's? |
|
|
|
Security researchers are reporting a trend for cybercriminals to go directly after financial institutions instead of their customers. In February, researchers from Kaspersky Lab reported that a gang called Carbanak stole up to $1 billion from banks and other financial institutions in 25 countries after infecting their systems with malware and carefully learning their internal procedures. The primary attack vector used was spear phishing, targeted emails containing malicious attachments. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2915112/police-breaks-up-cybergang-that-stole-over-15-million-from-banks.html
|
|
|
|
huh. we got the $DXY and the TLT turning down on top of the Dow Theory non-confirmation we still have in place. this, plus the break of the RUT below it's support of it's ascending wedge all equals "heads up". or, i could just be needlessly concerned:   |
|
|
|
The way I've envisioned it is the UTXO hash becomes a part every block's structure (just as the coinbase transaction) and it serves as a marker for the UTXO set as of the current block. This enables nodes to optionally ask for: a) all prior blocks, or b) the UTXO set only.
If there is a re-org, then the new chain's blocks simply have their own UTXO hash in each block and provide a valid reference for the UTXO set on that branch. Each separate chain would have their own UTXO hash that is valid at every block. The cost is adding 256 bits to each block, but this doesn't even have to be a part of the header structure and instead is part of the block itself.
i have a few questions: Until yesterday I thought UTXO commitments were a good idea. After the discussion here I oppose it for 2 reasons:
when you say "commitment", you mean by requiring a UTXO hash to be embedded into a block? - It gives additional capabilities to a 51% attacker
you mean that because the UTXO hash is embedded (committed) into blocks, it leaves room to be manipulated? how so? - Since the UTXO set is actually an implementation detail, making it part of the bitcoin protocol seems inelegant and uneccessarily cluttering
by implementation detail, do you mean that the UTXO set is maintained at the client level and is never actually used in the protocol? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
