Dow futures down another -58.
stock bulls need to be concerned.
Lol then you go quiet when it makes new highs yep, and your hubris is exactly what we need to form tops. Nope i didnt form an oppinion based on your post just commenting on the one you formed..alas you were were a good contrarian again.. Dow ends up 200... Were headed way up considering stocks have gone sideways for 4 mo i wouldn't declare victory just yet. if we get over 19000, i'll concede you're on to something. Lol right.. Those that bought stocks are up over 20% even on ranging conditions can you think of how? but at what risk? sure, you got a lot of things going for you such as QE, plunge protection team, an overall system that can't risk taking it's foot off the pedal. but if you think a 2008 can't happen again, i've got news for you; it can. i'm lucky b/c i don't have to rely on risky investments like the stock mkt right now and i fully intend not to. i'll make my money the old fashioned way by working hard, saving, and sitting on my coin. it's just a matter of time. but sure, these things can go on longer than anyone expects but i suspect we're getting close to the end. we just have a different perspective. |
|
|
|
Dow futures down another -58.
stock bulls need to be concerned.
Lol then you go quiet when it makes new highs yep, and your hubris is exactly what we need to form tops. Nope i didnt form an oppinion based on your post just commenting on the one you formed..alas you were were a good contrarian again.. Dow ends up 200... Were headed way up considering stocks have gone sideways for 4 mo i wouldn't declare victory just yet. if we get over 19000, i'll concede you're on to something. |
|
|
|
Just got a pop-up in Armory for 0.93.1... so are the issues fixed?
I was just about to post a message about this. We believe we've resolved a bulk of the issues. It's not perfect, but most of the issues were related to a database issue that has been resolved. Please try it and let us know. has the dependency fix for Ubuntu 12.04, 32 bit been implemented? I don't think so. A more permanent fix is about to enter the testing phase. Until then, a workaround is discussed here if you want to give it a try. It worked for me when I gave it a try a few days ago. it's actually the online version that is giving me the dependency error. |
|
|
|
Just got a pop-up in Armory for 0.93.1... so are the issues fixed?
I was just about to post a message about this. We believe we've resolved a bulk of the issues. It's not perfect, but most of the issues were related to a database issue that has been resolved. Please try it and let us know. has the dependency fix for Ubuntu 12.04, 32 bit been implemented? |
|
|
|
So you can have infinite and separated set of addresses at your own disposal based on the passphrase while having one single private key in the form of the seed? That's neat. Thank you.
That's not quite right. There's one mnemonic, that's the 24 word string. Combined with any (or no) passphrase, the mnemonic gets turned into the seed, and then the root private key. Each passphrase you use with the same mnemonic will generate a different root private key. what's the correct way to visualize this? a tree with the root privkey at the top and a new branch extending downwards for each passphrase in a hierarchical tree? picture it like bitcoin mining almost. The 24-word seed is like the list of transactions. The password (25th word of the seed) is like a nonce - any value will work, and can create millions of possibilities. isn't each passphrase generated set of addresses a separate branch of the HD tree? however, it sounds like no further sub-branches can be built under each branch? |
|
|
|
Dow futures down another -58.
stock bulls need to be concerned.
Lol then you go quiet when it makes new highs yep, and your hubris is exactly what we need to form tops. |
|
|
|
|
Dow futures down another -58.
stock bulls need to be concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
why do we trust the Electrum server more than mytrezor.com server when it comes to tracking addresses used?
|
|
|
|
So you can have infinite and separated set of addresses at your own disposal based on the passphrase while having one single private key in the form of the seed? That's neat. Thank you.
That's not quite right. There's one mnemonic, that's the 24 word string. Combined with any (or no) passphrase, the mnemonic gets turned into the seed, and then the root private key. Each passphrase you use with the same mnemonic will generate a different root private key. what's the correct way to visualize this? a tree with the root privkey at the top and a new branch extending downwards for each passphrase in a hierarchical tree? |
|
|
|
Thank you. And furthermore, coming from one of my long term nemeses! |
|
|
|
|
JR,
what's up with Odom leaving Monetas?
|
|
|
|
Yowser!
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?
  I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me. Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"... i absolutely can. there's been several goldbugs like you who have held me to a higher standard of using the original posting date of this thread or its precursor as a start point to measure the success or failure of this call. and this was when the outcome wasn't so clear. that is a reasonable request, unlike the cherry picking timeframes you are doing. when done in this manner, Bitcoin has killed gold in terms of relative performance. |
|
|
|
|
Yowser!
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
|
|
|
|
so will Lawsky and the BitLicense shut out Rakuten?
|
|
|
|
that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins. Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain. I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now. maybe. lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption. for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo. |
|
|
|
when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between). No I'm kind of saying the opposite. If they are not close in properties then one will quickly win out, and I think we all agree that is not a problem at all. It isn't a problem for passive participants, nor active ones. so to be clear, i want to avoid the situation where 2 lengthy chains (20 blocks or more) get created repeatedly and frequently by protocol changes that aren't well thought out and not subjected to consensus building. sort of like what happened March 2013. that is the situation where ppl lose money. the only reason Eleuthria didn't lose out on all the blocks BTCGuild mined during that true "fork" was that Gavin, the BF, and the community donated BTC to make up for the lost block rewards they had mined. ppl like you and me who didn't have tx's layered on top of one another in those 20+ blocks didn't lose money but i think those who did (like many ongoing businesses that transact continuously) should have or did lose money despite the rollback. certainly they would have if the chain hadn't been rolled back and been left to die. if you've never mined and lost a 50 BTC block reward from orphaning, it is painful, take my word. and that is just from a one or two block fork with orphan from everyday normal activity. The minority of cases where the choice is more difficult, you basically have two choices. One is to pick one or the other (including status quo) essentially by fiat, or recognize that these decisions are difficult and let a market sort it out. I argue it is more important to do that now, when Bitcoin is tiny, rather than suffer long term from having made the wrong choice earlier when the costs of change were relatively insignificant.
again, letting the market sort it out means letting the losing chain die out resulting in losses for those who made the wrong choice out of hubris or ignorance. too much of that isn't good for confidence and growth.
I don't think we disagree that stability is important, I just think that stability at the multi-trillion dollar cap scale is better served by letting things sort out robustly and dynamically at the billion dollar scale, even if that introduces more risk short term (indeed that risk is what allows it to happen).
true
Take this whole block size thing. It's pretty clear no consensus will ever be reached. Doing nothing is an arbitrary decision. Making a change to 20 MB or 20 MB + {some growth rate} is also arbitrary. We're not going to "figure this out." I say let the market play out with the toy system we have today and whichever system thrives will be far stronger at the trillion dollar scale.
Also, with respect to new participants losing money, that is fairly easy for them to avoid. Just buy both forks in equal proportion. That puts them in the same immunized position as existing holders with cold storage. If you don't do that you are making a bet on which fork is going to win. There is nothing wrong with making bets, but no one is forced to make this bet, and every bet has a winner and a loser.
that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins. the exchange price would start to reflect that first as the coins on the losing chain start dropping in price. one could try to sell the losing chain coins and jump back over to the other chain but certainly there will be losers and then bigger losers. too much of that is not good for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money.
As Zangelbert Bingledack defined it, existing participants would not need to do anything. They could just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out, their ledger position guaranteed. yeah, but to rocks point, we shouldn't want uncertainty in a money created by numerous forks causing constant choices. ppl don't want that headache. when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between). one group is going to lose money as one chain continues onward and eventually peters out as it becomes clear that the other chain is superior. that would not be good as that would result in losses. the reason i think this happens is that when it comes to the network of global money, i think the market will converge to one out of convenience, efficiency, and simplicity. sort of how the USD has been outright adopted by many countries today. it's easy. hard forks are not to be created lightly. i realize that is not what ZB was advocating. |
|
|
|
the more forks, the more fragmentation of the community. we need numerical concentration in the long run.
There a conflict here though. What we need is more numerical participants, not just numerical concentration of a relatively tiny number of participants. Bitcoin at its current scale of usage will just wither and die (or be leapfrogged) if it doesn't grow a lot, so concentration of the existing users is fairly pointless. I don't think anyone disagrees with this? The context of forking was allowing more rapid technical innovation, with the economic assumption that most participants would relatively quickly concentrate on one fork anyway, making that the successor. If that economic assumption turns out to be untrue, then it is obviously the case that the needs of some participants or potential participants are very poorly served by one of the forks, and overall growth will suffer by failing to address those underlying needs. i am referring to numerical growth and concentration of participants worldwide into the exisitng Bitcoin mainchain to maximize tx fees as we transition away from block rewards. this is essential. forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
