|
Yes, I've already marked it as spam.
|
|
|
|
It's actually the first time this happens to me, but I just received an email, stating that “17.099848400 have been credited to your account” (it doesn't even mention the currency, but I assume it's Bitcoin due to the link shown).  |
|
|
|
Yes, but you can't arbitrarily redefine words. People need to understand each other, and that's why there are words with agreed meaning.
And the agreed meaning of “fiat currency” is “a currency which value is regulated by a government”.
That definition would be wrong. The value of a currency is determined by what other people are willing to trade for it. The government may try to regulate the value by pegging a currency to another government fiat currency, forbidding non-government exchanges, or fixing prices on goods, but inevitable black markets and black market currency exchanges will give you the true value. Because money printing doesn't affect the value at all. Als, you seem to disregad my last comment, about the multiple definitions of fiat money online. |
|
|
|
This particular fork advocating eternal blockchain growth and never-full blocks should indeed be seen as an attack. Check my registration date.
It's not a “eternal blockchain growth”. You need to understand correctly what you're trying to disprove. You have some homework to do. Thanks for reminding me, but we're not talking about my university education here. |
|
|
|
This particular fork advocating eternal blockchain growth and never-full blocks should indeed be seen as an attack. Check my registration date.
It's not a “eternal blockchain growth”. You need to understand correctly what you're trying to disprove. |
|
|
|
- As the transaction rate increases, fewer and fewer people are 'peers' (any more than a debit-card user is a 'peer' in the SWIFT system when they get cash from a machine.) The more they throw up their hands and just use Multibit or Blockchain.info, the less they know or care about 'P2P' and decentralization.
I don't see why people see this as an issue. Even Satoshi knew and accepted this would happen: Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section eight) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
What has made humanity so successful as a whole is specialization. For example, I study computer technologies, but ask me to design a house or to sell a product or to do the accounting of a business, and I will fail miserably, because none of that is my speciality. So, I don't get why people get upset when they say “Not everyone will be able to be a miner”. Well, of course not. Not everyone is able to do everything, and specialization is a good thing. And while people may think that this leads to centralization, the truth is that miners are not a single entity and are still many of them for this to be avoided. |
|
|
|
So, are you disregarding the definition altogether?
No, I am saying there is a problem with the definition. [...] Yes, but you can't arbitrarily redefine words. People need to understand each other, and that's why there are words with agreed meaning. And the agreed meaning of “fiat currency” is “a currency which value is regulated by a government”. That's not the definition of fiat. [...] Let's see what the Internet says about it: Fiat money is currency which derives its value from government regulation or law.
Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity.
money (as paper currency) not convertible into coin or specie of equivalent value
Paper money or coins of little or no intrinsic value in themselves and not convertible into gold or silver, but made legal tender by fiat (order) of the government.
To be fair, from my quick search, there's one site (Merriam Webster) that mentions nothing about the government; but others do. So, you can't just say “That's not the definition of fiat” when most people disagree with you. |
|
|
|
So, are you disregarding the definition altogether?
No, I am saying there is a problem with the definition. [...] Yes, but you can't arbitrarily redefine words. People need to understand each other, and that's why there are words with agreed meaning. And the agreed meaning of “fiat currency” is “a currency which value is regulated by a government”. |
|
|
|
We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.
An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack? Did I stutter? Lot's of things that were hypothesized such as pruning have yet to happen. Also it was very unclear who would be embracing the system and why in the early times. With six years of history and ecosystem evolution it is perfectly relevant to re-evaluate certain things. And, as always, it would be simplistic to assume that everyone who was involved were always fully transparent and accurate with their thoughts. Satoshi had to make the best use of the resources he found at his disposal, and he himself may not have had a God-like understanding of all of the factors anyway. That still fails to explain why you think raising the limit is an attack. |
|
|
|
definition by wikipedia
Fiat money is currency which derives its value from government regulation or law.
My problem is with the semantics, and just because the great oracle of wikipedia qualifies the definition of fiat with the descriptor "government", doesn't mean bitcoin is not a fiat currency as opposed to a commodity currency. My point is that bitcoin is a rather novel way of creating a fiat currency without a government, or at least what is considered a government. how is it related to bitcoin?
The issue is why people consider Bitcoin not to be a fiat currency. So, are you disregarding the definition altogether? |
|
|
|
We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.
An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack? |
|
|
|
Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it.
Are you saying that the original plan was to have no limit at all? What would happen if we were just to remove the limit now, instead of making it bigger? |
|
|
|
If Satoshi was so smart, why the hell didnt he predict the need of at least 20MB to avoid this big problem later on? did he seriously not calculate this?
He did know that 1MB was temporary and not enough for worldwide use. I don't know whether he calculated how much it would need to grow. |
|
|
|
Bitcoins job (as Gold's was) is to exist.
This seems pretty tautological. |
|
|
|
|
Random.org is for trivial stuff.
Generating a Bitcoin private key and its corresponding address is not trivial at all.
|
|
|
|
No citation needed. Cash = totally anonymous. Bitcoin uses a public ledger, the blockchain, Monero doesnt. Is anonymity required for something to be cash? That's the citation I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29He has been here a long time, and how contributed to this community with good post, not just endless spam and memes. I think you need to read up a bit on your terms. How do you know who I am talking about? I didn't say any name, just that there are many sockpuppets (yes, I have read the Wikipedia definition before) in this thread. Yes, it may be a false assumption. |
|
|
|
|
The amount of sockpuppets is too damn high.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
