Just something from other thread. Someone might find it interesting: There are actually more than two options. Is is not either "Core" or "XT". At least these options should be considered (and their popularity with devs/pools/merchants/nodes clarified): - Core (and never changing block size, coins cap, block interval, etc.)
- Core for now (with clear intention not to increase block size until (dev) consensus is reached peacefully, with clear commitment not to enforce any forking BIP or put it into wild without thorough* discussion, but with clear intention and commitment to increase block size eventually and not to block it at 1MB forever)
- Some Block size solution (such as BIP100, or dynamical changing block size which includes even possibility to block size decrease if underutilized such as this**)
- Block size increase (to some "reasonable value" 1.2MB-4MB, as a quick fix, using other BIPs than BIP101, formulating new BIP)
- Block size increase to 8MB without XT (for now, postponing any other size increases)
- Block size increase according to BIP101 without XT (block size doubling even after 8MB, final block size 8GB, ..., no XT-like "anti DDOS")
- XT
* - Lengthy does not necessarily mean thorough. "It has been discussed for two years now" does not mean "It has been discussed enough and we ought to make change now!"** - tl;dr: "Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is bigger than 90% of the maximum block size, which is 1 MB for now.
If it is found that more than 75% blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double the maximum block size.
If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is less than 35% of the maximum block size. If it is higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size.
If none of the above condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is." |
|
|
|
This is false dilemma. There are actually more than two options! Is is not either "Core" or "XT". At least these options should be considered (and their popularity with devs/pools/merchants/nodes clarified): - Core (and never changing block size, coins cap, block interval, etc.)
- Core for now (with clear intention not to increase block size until (dev) consensus is reached peacefully, with clear commitment not to enforce any forking BIP or put it into wild without thorough* discussion, but with clear intention and commitment to increase block size eventually and not to block it at 1MB forever)
- Some Block size solution (such as BIP100, or dynamical changing block size which includes even possibility to block size decrease if underutilized such as this**)
- Block size increase (to some "reasonable value" 1.2MB-4MB, as a quick fix, using other BIPs than BIP101, formulating new BIP)
- Block size increase to 8MB without XT (for now, postponing any other size increases)
- Block size increase according to BIP101 without XT (block size doubling even after 8MB, final block size 8GB, ..., no XT-like "anti DDOS")
- XT
* - Lengthy does not necessarily mean thorough. "It has been discussed for two years now" does not mean "It has been discussed enough and we ought to make change now!"** - tl;dr: "Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, which is 1 MB for now.
If it is found that more than 90% blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double the maximum block size.
If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is less than 50% of the maximum block size. If it is higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size.
If none of the above condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is." |
|
|
|
hlavne ze mate vsichni sig campaign  Všichni ne. |
|
|
|
I don't give a sh#@$t about Bitstamp, but I would prefer that their implosion doesn't send Bitcoin further down the drain.
Why not? Cheap coins I mean, bitcoin won't die does it? Please,... tell me it won't die. please pleaseplease! Bitcoin won't die, but it will be a lot less useful. The infrastructure around it will probably die. And I respect you too much to tell you where you can shove your cheap coins. Bitcoin will finally separate from fiat, will become much more useful, and its price in USD will have no significance. |
|
|
|
what difficulty increase is needed for an b sell pay out.
At this point, probably over 50%. It won't happen this time, but you could buy a ton of B.SELL cheap in case it does happen again.  If it does it will be multiple changes down the road. My very rough step-by-step calculation... {for each unit:} BDD should hold 200 days of dividends. Current dividend is 0.00006187 BTC. BDD should hold 0.012374 BTC. BDD currently holds 0.00784292 BTC. B.SELL will pay dividend if B.MINE dividend becomes 0.00784292/200=0.00003921 BTC. This will happen for difficulty 64.13 giga. That means 64.13/40.64 = 1.578 ... We need 57.8% increase. The number of BDD units will obviously change, but this should be rough estimation. Please correct me if I made some serious mistake. |
|
|
|
I believe that this is just how the technology will grow. Its still pretty new and uncontrolled or regulated. If you look at how many rules and regulations are on fiat to prevent all things that are currently happening to bitcoin. Its just a matter of time before bitcoin has the same regulation to reduce these things from happening.
Lets hope this day will never come. |
|
|
|
|
Cheap coins are close :-).
|
|
|
|
We can look at the (necessity of building more) nuclear plants as positive externality of Bitcoin. Might even stimulate Fusion research. |
|
|
|
|
You start from an assumption that economic inequality is a bad thing and that the gap between rich and poor should decrease. You will never ever get consensus on that.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that Bitcoin primarily is not an investment and it is not a way how to make more non-Bitcoins (USD, EUR, ...). Of course, people who treat Bitcoin as get-rich-quick (or get-rich-slowly) scheme have a problem.
|
|
|
|
Hi,
after updating, Mycelium tells me that my Android 2.2 phone is unsupported due to a bug in random number creation on that OS version.
Could you share some technical details so I can estimate my risk? (or did I miss an announcement somewhere?)
Since I'll be switching to a new phone in a few weeks anyway (Christmas is just around the corner) I could probably live with avoiding to create new transactions and just initializing from the backup once I have the new phone.
Onkel Paul
there is a bug that leads to android 2.2 being unable to multiply big numbers _sometimes_. previously this mostly just lead to wrong TX being generated, that were rejected by the network. annoying, but no huge risk. now with HD wallets it is possible to generate a wrong address from a seed that has no matching private key. this is bad. therefore, quit using it we had one case where a user reported this, and we strongly think android 2.2 was the reason. Mycelium warned me that there will be no further updates for my Android version. So using Mycelium HD wallet functionality with this old Android is not recommended now? I can use old pre-HD address pairs. |
|
|
|
|
OK. Let's try different angle. Imagine this situation:
0.) We have an island with small community (~30 people). There is no money, there are no debts.
1.) People exchange things for things, services for things, services for services ... maybe even such abstract concepts like "personal free time", "respect", "friendship", "self-confidence", "conscience" are exchanged one for other. ... This is (generalized) barter system.
2.) Someone finds good and tasty peanuts in small isolated (unexplored, unclaimed, difficult to access) place within the island. Peanuts are nutritious and tasty, therefore they are useful, they are beneficial. No debt was needed to create them or bring them to people.
3.) Most of the people (not all of them, not always, not immediately) start to accept the peanuts as means of exchange. So they accept them not because they want to eat them, but because they believe that someone in the future will also accept them.
Now... If you say that all money is debt or that creation of money requires debt then you either:
- do not consider above-mentioned peanuts as money
- can not imagine system in step 1) working without debts
- believe that there have to be (political) system that guarantees and enforces (at least partial) acceptance of peanuts and call peoples responsibility and duty to abide such claims as "being in debt".
Am I right?
|
|
|
|
|
x-bt.com is closing.
The plan to takeover all other altcoins does not work so fast as we hoped.
|
|
|
|
|
And after one year... what happened? Low volume?
|
|
|
|
As to the double loss and bankrupcy protection. I am speaking about (other version of) ideal world where borrower would rather honorably die in starvation to repay his debt from his own property than not repay the debt, ask for some protection and break his promise to lender.
Oh, you are one of those. Apparently I was wrong when I thought you misspoke. I'm with you about 80%, but it seems daft to me that you insist that the borrower be 100% responsible for their own bad judgment, but the lender can toss cash at any warm body that is willing to sign the note. The borrower's default is evidence that the lender wasn't sufficiently diligent, and should share, to some degree, in the losses. Modern bankruptcy laws implicitly or explicitly accept this joint responsibility. At any rate, this is a degenerate circumstance. Commerce is rarely zero-sum. I also agree with shared responsibility. But the lender should take a loss after the borrower has payed as much as he could. If the borrower goes default then it should be like "he has no more property (except for some minimum for living)*" not like "all his current property is protected". The lender will share the losses simply because there is no more** to take. I do not know current bankruptcy laws, but what I see is protecting both the borrowers and the lenders from the taxpayers money. Which is wrong. I think that irresponsible borrowers should go bankrupt (if they taken too much bad loans) THEN irresponsible lenders should go bankrupt (if they borrowed to too many irresponsible borrowers) THEN investors of irresponsible lenders should feel a loss (if they did not care about loans portfolio and its sustainability). No one of them should be saved from the others money. I agree with intermediate situation where borrower goes bankrupt (not starving to death though, that was too extreme from me) and lender makes a profit. I do not agree with opposite situation where lender takes a loss (or goes bankrupt) and borrower takes a (protected) profit. * - There is, of course, a great debate about what should be this "minimum for living". ** - I know there is a concept of indebted servitude, but this would be very difficult in current world. |
|
|
|
There are actually two bitcoins. There’s the blockchain-technology bitcoin, which I think is fantastic, and the future, and all sorts of businesses are investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in Silicon Valley and around the world to build businesses on the back of the blockchain technology because it’s so wonderful and can move assets frictionlessly. But then there is this aspect of the pretend currency and the pretend commodity. Part of the con is in the pretend commodity, because this is a completely shallow, liquidless market. When you know that there’s, what, 13 million coins in circulation, and more than 50% of the them are owned and managed by about 950 people, you realize how shallow the market it is and how subject the market is to manipulation. At last, someone with common sense explains the difference between the technology and the "currency" unit. Most of the get-rich-quick hardcore fanatics try to deceive people by telling how bitcoin's unit value is tied to the technology it's based on. The "currency" is nothing more then a big pyramid for a few to get rich at the expense of others. The technology can be used without everyone having to make a small group of speculators rich. Speculators who haven't actually contributed anything to the development of the technology itself. It's only an illusion that bitcoin's unit value is backed by the technology itself. I think that it's a good thing that some people will start to publicly lift the veil behind bitcoin and it's market system. I would recommend him to look into all the exchanges and question on what would stop them in playing the market themselves, with information that isn't public. 200 posts, do you realize the reward for maintaining the blockchain is bitcoin, and it's our job to make bitcoin widely used and valuable? GET ABOARD SAILOR That's the thing. The millions worth of equipment isn't needed to maintain the blockchain of bitcoin. Increasing hasrate of the network doesn't improve anything in the network. The general idea was that it would increase the security, but now most of the network goes through only a few pools, and if those pools get compromised, then the network will get compromised, no matter how big was the overall hashrate of the network. So, rewarding miners actually means rewarding work that has no use. The bitcoin mining equipment merchants are practically snake oils salesmen who prey on the ignorance of consumers. I'm on board "the crypto casino" already, only not in bitcoin, because bitcoin is old, boring and fragile to me. I'm now into newer cryptos, that have more attractive attributes and that are currently at the beginning stage, not the end stage. All pools are dependend on thier individual members. Leaving pool or changing it is much easier than change a country you live in, change government you pay taxes to ot change bank you have your money in. |
|
|
|
Já jsem tuto směnárnu použil již nesčetněkrát s velkými částkami a zatím vše bez problému. Zdá se, že shitcoinCZ si stěžuje na 4 hodiny starou transakci. Pokud uvádějí, že vrací neprodleně, tak to sice je důvod k obavám, ale i tak bych se na jeho místě začal více strachovat až v úterý. |
|
|
|
My concern was a bit different. Let me rephrase it.
Assume there are total 1000 BTC in the world
I have 500 BTC which I lent to another person @10%. Now where will that extra 10% BTC or 50 BTC for the interest come from in the economy? The only way he can repay the interest is if someone in the economy faces a loss of 50 BTC from which he profits. So are we devising an economy where loss is certain for some and all cannot profit at the same time?
There is no loss. Profit is mutual and it is "born" from human work and creativity. That person who is borrowing 500 BTC from you probably has some investment in mind. For example he uses this 500 BTC to build experimental spaceship that allows people to visit orbit. (Not a realistic option for 500 BTC, but let's stay with this example.) He spends this 500 BTC to buy material, to pay the scientists and technicians, to make some advertising, to pay for fuel etc. And he succeeds. He sells tickets into orbit for 6 BTC and manages to sell 100 of them. You get your 550 BTC back, he has 50 BTC extra and working business. Your extra 50 BTC (interest) in fact comes from the "poor orbital travelers" who "lost" their BTC. But... they gained wonderful experience that was worth (more than) it.If the orbital experience is not worth 6 BTC then customers made a miscalculation in their expectations. If the person who is borrowing 500 BTC is unable to make a profit (or even to build a spaceship or to sell any tickets) then he miscalculated his business plan and your (deserved) profit is his (deserved) loss.
Exactly my point. Someone's profit will have to be other person's loss. Someone will have to miscalculate for other to profit. There isn't a scenario wherein all can profit or all can calculate well (You will say that is not practical, but we are talking about an ideal world where everyone is happy. After all, that is the vision of bitcoin as well to some extent) Sorry to disappoint you, but our views are different. I have put emphasis on my actual point. "poor" (orbital travelers) and "lost" were meant as irony. Actually I think that most of the scenarios would be like that. In my opinion this is profit for everyone. I would very much disagree with the world where everyone is happy (without relation to his abilities, effort and achievements) , I do not think this is the vision of Bitcoin and I hope it will never be its goal. As to the double loss and bankrupcy protection. I am speaking about (other version of) ideal world where borrower would rather honorably die in starvation to repay his debt from his own property than not repay the debt, ask for some protection and break his promise to lender. |
|
|
|
|
It would be nice if recent announcements from friedcat (and other official info) are linked from (updated) first thread post.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
