Nice!
BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last blog post?
Yes I am. That was beautiful: putting Rusty in his place. |
|
|
|
BTW: Homeland Security was storing all the seized Bitcoins on a Trezor that they either purchased or seized from someone else!
whuuuut? how do you know this? Because when they transferred my BTC back to me they transferred them from their Trezor. I am not saying that they always store seized BTC on a Trezor. All I can say is that they used a Trezor in my case. Also, to be clear, I consider this good advertising for a great product that I believe in and use myself. congrats on the dismissal! wow, didn't expect that. when i first read about your case i was pretty appalled at what seemed like an egregious abuse of power. glad to hear that justice still seems to work in some cases in this country. |
|
|
|
Looking to order 5 of these badasses. are they still foolproof? has anyone had any problems with it security wise?
Go for it! I've never had problems with security and I haven't seen any others who have. The Trezor's always my go-to for storage. Thanks. I've waited this long to make sure there hasnt been an issue but keeping up with this thread is hard work because of the amount of replies it gets. looks to be only minor bugs and no major bugs which as resulted in losing bitcoin so im going to go for it. i've not heard of any issues either. otoh, my friend just got his delivered the other day via SL direct buy via DHL 3d delivery but it originated from Panama? anybody know anything about that? i thought they come from Czechoslavakia? |
|
|
|
I've you conceptualize that core dev determination of block size is central planning, then it becomes clear why it doesn't work.
That's exactly what Pierre Rochard demostrated whith his replies when I criticized Peter Todd during the "network stress test": Peter Todd @petertoddbtc 7 lug
The transaction backlog is like a large crowd of orphans standing outside Sotheby's trying to buy Picasso's for spare change.
Nice! BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last blog post? |
|
|
|
|
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
|
|
|
Looks like we have a rate rise by the fed on tap this year. Should start to get priced in on monday
Yeah, no. QE4? Yep. I'm expecting both, with unlimited Keynesian hubris on the side. This is a confidence game, so with sufficiently disorganized alternatives, the Fed may be bold and anyway they are not afraid of Bitcoin... at all. Indeed. And for those that are still counting it will be QE5 next. http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Quantitative-Easing.htmQE4 was a re-bailout of the Treasury market for new issuance plus a much needed cash infusion for the primary dealers (banks) QE3 was a re-bailout of the MBS investors (re-bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and banks QE2 was a bailout of the Treasury market, FDIC, plus domestic and foreign banks QE1 was a bailout of the MBS investors (bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and the banks TARP was a bailout of the merchant banks (Citi, Squid etc) plus AIG, car-makers and (why not?) foreign banks the time to have raised rates was during the towering stock market advance of the last few years before what appears to have been the peak on May 19, 2015. now that we have a Dow Theory non-confirmation on the board which looks to confirm the latter half of this year, it would be highly unlikely they raise interest rates into the the teeth of that as that would only accelerate an ongoing plunge. it will be interesting to see how they handle this one but i doubt it will include a raise in rates. Market performance being that mysterious third mandate of the dual mandate. The way they behave, you'd think it's all about the stock market. |
|
|
|
Looks like we have a rate rise by the fed on tap this year. Should start to get priced in on monday
Yeah, no. QE4? Yep. I'm expecting both, with unlimited Keynesian hubris on the side. This is a confidence game, so with sufficiently disorganized alternatives, the Fed may be bold and anyway they are not afraid of Bitcoin... at all. Indeed. And for those that are still counting it will be QE5 next. http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Quantitative-Easing.htmQE4 was a re-bailout of the Treasury market for new issuance plus a much needed cash infusion for the primary dealers (banks) QE3 was a re-bailout of the MBS investors (re-bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and banks QE2 was a bailout of the Treasury market, FDIC, plus domestic and foreign banks QE1 was a bailout of the MBS investors (bailout of Fannie & Freddie) and the banks TARP was a bailout of the merchant banks (Citi, Squid etc) plus AIG, car-makers and (why not?) foreign banks the time to have raised rates was during the towering stock market advance of the last few years before what appears to have been the peak on May 19, 2015. now that we have a Dow Theory non-confirmation on the board which looks to confirm the latter half of this year, it would be highly unlikely they raise interest rates into the the teeth of that as that would only accelerate an ongoing plunge. it will be interesting to see how they handle this one but i doubt it will include a raise in rates. |
|
|
|
https://mytrezor.com down ?  Makes me consider Electrum even more, just not sure about the privacy that way. If you want privacy, use Trezor on Android with Mycelium through Tor. Rassad, so Mycelium servers can see all our tx's and balances, right? |
|
|
|
Looks like we have a rate rise by the fed on tap this year. Should start to get priced in on monday
I'll believe it when I see it. |
|
|
|
Converted to 0.10.2 XT. Eagerly awaiting the largeblocks version.
I have 6 nodes ready and waiting. how much does it cost you per node per month? also, i asked before but you missed it... where are you getting those hash rate distribution graphs from? they dont match up with blockchain.info and others. i think i'm paying $30/yr for 1GB RAM with swap/100GB disk |
|
|
|
|
Small blocks equal small minds.
|
|
|
|
Converted to 0.10.2 XT. Eagerly awaiting the largeblocks version.
I have 6 nodes ready and waiting. |
|
|
|
Garzik Predicts ‘Chaos’ If Changes Made to Both Fee Structure and Block Size http://cointelegraph.com/news/114966/garzik-predicts-chaos-if-changes-made-to-both-fee-structure-and-block-size“First, users & market are forced through this period of chaos by ‘let a fee market develop’ as the whole market changes to a radically different economic policy, [one] the network has never seen before. Next, when blocks are consistently full, the past consensus was that block size limit will be increased eventually. What happens at that point? Answer — Users & market are forced through a second period of chaos and disruption as the fee market is rebooted again by changing the block size limit.”
I've you conceptualize that core dev determination of block size is central planning, then it becomes clear why it doesn't work. |
|
|
|
I think the gold value will never collapsing, there are many ups and downs of every coin but gold is old
Yep, you hit it on the head. It's old and soon to be replaced by the new. I think we're going to see gold parity once again, at the minimum. |
|
|
|
I cannot wait until we fork this problem away.
Yep. interesting reddit post that sums up the fork in the road debate nicely. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ef6h1/bitcoin_ideology_do_you_vote_for_a_or_b/Multiple Choice Question:
Do you see bitcoin in the future as:
A) a scaling peer to peer network with ultra cheap transactions, for anyone globally to use, with bitcoin functioning as internet cash, avoiding financial intermediaries or banks.
B) a settlement layer for banks, fin tech companies and early adopters, with a low volume expensive to transact upon blockchain
The root of the issue is that option "B" Bitcoin as a high-fee high-value settlement layer, without "A" scaling and widespread growing ecosystem usage happening first, is economic illiteracy of the first order. "B" by itself is simply a wet-dream of Blockchain Economics central planner fanbois. If the 1MB is allowed to crowd out regular user tx, not just spam, then fees will plateau and inexorably decline amid an ongoing PR disaster. Fortunately rescue from the 1MB4EVR idiocy seems likely. Gavin is fixing the cpu-intensive bloat-tx attack threat, and then it looks like the change to an 8MB block limit will be offered to the community. I hope that Gavin and Jeff team up for this. When I first learned about Bitcoin it was Satoshi, Gavin, Jeff and Sipa who were commit access Core Dev (though Satoshi was already the Silent One). If it takes just two of them to get Bitcoin back on the track to success - then all power to them! Hey hey, as early adopter, I resemble that! |
|
|
|
devs should stick to what they know best; coding. they are inexperienced and naive in areas such as fee markets or finance, much less game theory. most of them have little experience in dealing with ppl much less starting a business. ppl who understand these things and who have knowledge regarding the history of money and economics certainly can help prevent missteps along the way.
That's true for devs in general. Security, crypto, and especially BTC devs by necessity and predilection have deep understandings of game theory. But yes, they should stick to coding and not (attempt) central management of tx fee markets, regardless of pleas of 'Oh, won't someone think of the users!' then why do we hear nothing but cries of "centralization" from gmax et al despite this?  |
|
|
|
Garzik starting to get it more and more
Nope, Garzik is losing his grip and confusing BTC's economic figure with its development ground. Tx fees have always been destined to wean the network off, and ultimately replace, block subsidies. It's not a "new" policy. Who appointed Garzik as Bitcoin's FOMC and granted him the power to regulate fee pressure? Fee pressure is something to be celebrated as a milestone towards Bitcoin independence (and away from Ponzi territory), not feared and used to justify panic reactions just because fees rise from 1/8 to 1/4 of a pittance. Garzik whines (and exaggerates) about slightly higher tx fees differing "radically" from "what users have experienced for the past ~6 years." So what? Users have also experienced sub-$10k BTC in the past. If BTC rises to $10k, should we increase block emission to preserve UX? The spectacle of a Bitcoin core dev wringing his hands over "disruption" and "new economic policy" is hard to endure. As PWuille stated so powerfully and succinctly: devs should stick to what they know best; coding. they are inexperienced and naive in areas such as fee markets or finance, much less game theory. most of them have little experience in dealing with ppl much less starting a business. ppl who understand these things and who have knowledge regarding the history of money and economics certainly can help prevent missteps along the way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
