adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
June 24, 2013, 12:49:06 AM |
|
forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/06/23/bitcoin-foundation-receives-cease-and-desist-order-from-california/
Bye, BTC Foundation
Let them take some heat for all the others with less legal backing. This might be the test if the foundation is worth the donations they receive. If they opt for claims that delay a decision on the case for years, they will not get my money for years. California’s Department of Financial Institutions decided to issue a cease and desist warning to conference organizer Bitcoin Foundation for allegedly engaging in the business ... thanks for the warning lol! weird news is weird bitcoin will go UP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:00:22 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
MickeyT2008
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
This account was recently hacked
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:06:06 AM |
|
@MickeyT2008 : Thanks Now we just need another "situation" to inspire a new song I like the songs but I'm not sure we need any more situations like that! I did okay by changing my tiny BTC stash on MtGox into LTC on BTC-e but I must say it's a lot more civilised here than it is in the BTC-e trollbox, I can't imagine any of them putting a song like that together. Anyway, I'm off to bed so goodnight everyone, it's very late here in the UK @MtGox - I'll be back
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:17:35 AM |
|
forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/06/23/bitcoin-foundation-receives-cease-and-desist-order-from-california/
Bye, BTC Foundation
Let them take some heat for all the others with less legal backing. This might be the test if the foundation is worth the donations they receive. If they opt for claims that delay a decision on the case for years, they will not get my money for years. California’s Department of Financial Institutions decided to issue a cease and desist warning to conference organizer Bitcoin Foundation for allegedly engaging in the business ... thanks for the warning lol! weird news is weird bitcoin will go UP! It's quite stupid to try to call a bureaucrats bluff. The reason bureaucracy has been so successful historically is that you lose even if you do.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:00:25 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 03:00:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 04:00:29 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
rezurect
|
|
June 24, 2013, 04:47:11 AM |
|
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not? I don't think the Sha256 ASICs can be modified for Scrypt. They hold enough hashing power to ensure SHA 256 remains. Scrypt would be a hard fork which the ASIC users wont adopt. Most users will protect their investment at any cost.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 05:00:36 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Frozenlock
|
|
June 24, 2013, 05:04:30 AM |
|
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not? I don't think the Sha256 ASICs can be modified for Scrypt. They hold enough hashing power to ensure SHA 256 remains. Scrypt would be a hard fork which the ASIC users wont adopt. Most users will protect their investment at any cost. That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power. This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version. But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm (Even if some miners don't like it.) Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins. Marvellous, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
fr33d0miz3r
|
|
June 24, 2013, 05:34:25 AM |
|
I must say it's a lot more civilised here than it is in the BTC-e trollbox, I can't imagine any of them putting a song like that together.
Trollbox is trollbox
|
|
|
|
|
tHash
|
|
June 24, 2013, 05:53:32 AM |
|
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not? I don't think the Sha256 ASICs can be modified for Scrypt. They hold enough hashing power to ensure SHA 256 remains. Scrypt would be a hard fork which the ASIC users wont adopt. Most users will protect their investment at any cost. That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power. This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version. But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm (Even if some miners don't like it.) Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins. Marvellous, isn't it? If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 06:00:19 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Frozenlock
|
|
June 24, 2013, 06:15:24 AM |
|
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not? I don't think the Sha256 ASICs can be modified for Scrypt. They hold enough hashing power to ensure SHA 256 remains. Scrypt would be a hard fork which the ASIC users wont adopt. Most users will protect their investment at any cost. That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power. This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version. But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm (Even if some miners don't like it.) Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins. Marvellous, isn't it? If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS? Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works? Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money. There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute. Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold. All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground. All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable. What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold. Back to Bitcoin. What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing! They can't prevent a change in the proof of work. In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs. You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be. Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself. If a 2 min per block time is really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that. Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed. Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed. What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin? Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain. Merchants can keep using the same software. And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence).
|
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
June 24, 2013, 06:31:22 AM |
|
Sunday night dump time?
|
|
|
|
solex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
100 satoshis -> ISO code
|
|
June 24, 2013, 06:32:58 AM |
|
... Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed. ...
Absolutely. And the higher the unit value of a bitcoin goes, into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars, then everyone who is holding it and mining it will have such a vested interest in its success that this will force a consensus on important changes. I think we saw this in March when all differences were put aside while the chain-fork was dealt with. It was different in 2011 when coins were worth little, so messing around with new ideas had little cost. No one will sacrifice their $1000 coins for penny alt-coins.
|
|
|
|
mmitech
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
things you own end up owning you
|
|
June 24, 2013, 06:34:51 AM |
|
to what ? scrypt ? LTC already use that tech If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not? I don't think the Sha256 ASICs can be modified for Scrypt. They hold enough hashing power to ensure SHA 256 remains. Scrypt would be a hard fork which the ASIC users wont adopt. Most users will protect their investment at any cost. That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold any power. This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version. But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm (Even if some miners don't like it.) Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins. Marvellous, isn't it? If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS? Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works? Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money. There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute. Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold. All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground. All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable. What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold. Back to Bitcoin. What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing! They can't prevent a change in the proof of work. In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs. You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be. Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself. If a 2 min per block time is really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that. Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed. Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed. What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin? Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain. Merchants can keep using the same software. And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence). OK now you don't make any sense, but I have no energy to discuss this any further, we will see how things will turn out .
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
June 24, 2013, 07:00:36 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
sarc
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
June 24, 2013, 07:22:38 AM |
|
Volume plunging to new depths on its journey straight to hell, technically speaking :
|
|
|
|
|