|
FatherMcGruder
|
 |
March 12, 2011, 06:51:54 PM |
|
I've mentioned elsewhere that paper bitcoin notes could each have a public key that you could use to check that the bill was backed. The bill could also have a feature that would reveal the private key upon voiding the bill.
As for interest, don't charge it! Why would you, just because you can?
|
Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519 Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple. Shameless display of my bitcoin address: 1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
March 12, 2011, 07:15:40 PM |
|
I've mentioned elsewhere that paper bitcoin notes could each have a public key that you could use to check that the bill was backed. The bill could also have a feature that would reveal the private key upon voiding the bill.
As for interest, don't charge it! Why would you, just because you can?
No, you charge interest because it is a key component of the coordination between present and future desires. I don't see why people keep calling Bitcoin deflationary, it's not. Prices today are chosen based on the amount of fiat currency some number of Bitcoin can buy. As Bitcoin becomes stronger with regard to fiat currency, it seems as if there is deflation, but there really is not. The money supply is increasing at a rate of 300 BTC/hour. Once prices are set primarily in BTC (when producers can buy raw materials with BTC), this "problem" will disappear. Bitcoin has a steady amount of monetary inflation, known by all in advance, which approaches zero. This will allow interest rates to be chosen that take this known inflation into account. I expect these rates will be much lower than today, if not negative. |
|
|
|
|
|
ryepdx
|
|
March 13, 2011, 12:34:12 AM |
|
I don't see why people keep calling Bitcoin deflationary, it's not. Prices today are chosen based on the amount of fiat currency some number of Bitcoin can buy. As Bitcoin becomes stronger with regard to fiat currency, it seems as if there is deflation, but there really is not. The money supply is increasing at a rate of 300 BTC/hour.
Technically yes, we are in the inflationary stage of the bitcoin deployment. And yes, the number of bitcoins to be made is set at 21 million. However, we must assume that once all the bitcoins have been deployed there will be a slight rate of deflation as wallets are lost to the destruction of the media on which they are stored. Someone stores their wallet on a personal computer without an off-site backup and a natural disaster or accident destroys the data? All the bitcoins in that wallet are gone. So yes, bitcoins are ultimately deflationary. Once we hit 21 million we will only be able to destroy them. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
March 13, 2011, 12:36:08 AM |
|
Technically yes, we are in the inflationary stage of the bitcoin deployment. And yes, the number of bitcoins to be made is set at 21 million. However, we must assume that once all the bitcoins have been deployed there will be a slight rate of deflation as wallets are lost to the destruction of the media on which they are stored. Someone stores their wallet on a personal computer without an off-site backup and a natural disaster or accident destroys the data? All the bitcoins in that wallet are gone. So yes, bitcoins are ultimately deflationary. Once we hit 21 million we will only be able to destroy them.
That is true, but the rate of loss will be inversely proportional to their value. This deflation is quite mild compared to inflation via quantitative easing, interest rate manipulation, and fractional reserve banking. |
|
|
|
|
|
ryepdx
|
|
March 13, 2011, 03:03:07 AM |
|
Technically yes, we are in the inflationary stage of the bitcoin deployment. And yes, the number of bitcoins to be made is set at 21 million. However, we must assume that once all the bitcoins have been deployed there will be a slight rate of deflation as wallets are lost to the destruction of the media on which they are stored. Someone stores their wallet on a personal computer without an off-site backup and a natural disaster or accident destroys the data? All the bitcoins in that wallet are gone. So yes, bitcoins are ultimately deflationary. Once we hit 21 million we will only be able to destroy them.
That is true, but the rate of loss will be inversely proportional to their value. This deflation is quite mild compared to inflation via quantitative easing, interest rate manipulation, and fractional reserve banking. Well, yes. Obviously! I don't think we'd all be here if that weren't so. :-) |
|
|
|
|
we6jbo
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
March 13, 2011, 04:44:41 AM |
|
In another thread I was making the analogy that you'd have a local network inside a submarine and the crew wanted to transfer bitcoins to eachother but there might be an occasion when the crew would want to buy a shipment of stuff from a city so ever so often the sub would emerge onto the water surface where the sub would them be in radio range to send the bitcoins. From the feedback that I got it sounded like you can't have a segregated bitcoin network like in my example as it would cause double spending? In any case I did come up with a solution for this. Instead of having one bitcoin network you'd have bitcoin networks. The bitcoin Internet and bitcoin intranets. To connect them to eachother people acting as bitcoin to bitcoin traders would handle the transactions that were off of each bitcoin network so for example bitcoin_submarine would have a bitcoin - bitcoin trader who would collect bitcoins from a crew member and then the bitcoin trader would call another bitcoin - bitcoin trader on the shore and tell that person that they collected 10btc and that the 10btc would go to some address in the city which then would become the responsibility of the bitcoin - bitcoin trader on the shore to make that transaction through the network. I guess what I'm saying is that if bitcoin must rely on the Internet for it to work then this might be an alternative solution so in the case that you make, someone in Africa who does not have a link to the Internet, that village would setup a bitcoin - bitcoin trader, someone who can be trusted by another bitcoin - bitcoin trader and then through a computer or a few computers setup in a LAN configuration that village would be able to make local BTC trades while also making global trades around the world without needing a 100% dedicated Internet connection.
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 13, 2011, 05:14:04 AM |
|
In another thread I was making the analogy that you'd have a local network inside a submarine and the crew wanted to transfer bitcoins to eachother but there might be an occasion when the crew would want to buy a shipment of stuff from a city so ever so often the sub would emerge onto the water surface where the sub would them be in radio range to send the bitcoins. From the feedback that I got it sounded like you can't have a segregated bitcoin network like in my example as it would cause double spending?
Not really true in this case. The risk of double spending is if there is a person on the sub trying to send coins from a wallet to another person on the sub, while another person in the greater Internet has a copy of that same wallet trying to spend those same bitcoins. This excludes the possibility that the sub was trying to generate while under water, which would be futile and therefore should be suspect anyway. There would still be a near zero risk that coins could be double spent on the sub itself. A disconnected client is at risk of a double spend, but a disconnected client can certainly itself spend. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
FatherMcGruder
|
|
March 13, 2011, 06:28:37 PM |
|
Not really true in this case. The risk of double spending is if there is a person on the sub trying to send coins from a wallet to another person on the sub, while another person in the greater Internet has a copy of that same wallet trying to spend those same bitcoins. This excludes the possibility that the sub was trying to generate while under water, which would be futile and therefore should be suspect anyway. There would still be a near zero risk that coins could be double spent on the sub itself. A disconnected client is at risk of a double spend, but a disconnected client can certainly itself spend.
Yes, but the sailors can't process the transactions by generating blocks, right? Otherwise, they'd have to fork the chain. |
Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519 Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple. Shameless display of my bitcoin address: 1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH |
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
March 13, 2011, 08:30:55 PM |
|
Let's say they fork the chain. When they reconnect, they find out that their chain is shorter (less combined difficulty). What happens to the transactions in their chain? If they are rebroadcast, that might solve the problem. The only thing I see is that they would be unable to generate blocks at current difficulty. Perhaps their clients are smart enough to know when they are disconnected from the main network. When disconnected, blocks are generated at a lower difficulty, which is readjusted every N blocks where N is significantly less than 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 13, 2011, 09:03:33 PM |
|
Not really true in this case. The risk of double spending is if there is a person on the sub trying to send coins from a wallet to another person on the sub, while another person in the greater Internet has a copy of that same wallet trying to spend those same bitcoins. This excludes the possibility that the sub was trying to generate while under water, which would be futile and therefore should be suspect anyway. There would still be a near zero risk that coins could be double spent on the sub itself. A disconnected client is at risk of a double spend, but a disconnected client can certainly itself spend.
Yes, but the sailors can't process the transactions by generating blocks, right? Otherwise, they'd have to fork the chain. No, and if they tried then their blocks would be wiped out each time that they reconnected to the majority network, and those transactions would have to be included in another future block anyway. The chain split that it would cause wouldn't be a problem for anyone outside of the ship. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 13, 2011, 09:14:17 PM |
|
Let's say they fork the chain. When they reconnect, they find out that their chain is shorter (less combined difficulty). What happens to the transactions in their chain?
Basicly, yes. The only thing I see is that they would be unable to generate blocks at current difficulty. Perhaps their clients are smart enough to know when they are disconnected from the main network. When disconnected, blocks are generated at a lower difficulty, which is readjusted every N blocks where N is significantly less than 2016.
A client could detect when it is on the minority side of a network split, although none presently do, by tracking the average time interval between blocks. If the interval is more than twice the average for several blocks, or more than 6 times the average once, that client is almost certainly disconnected from the majority network. Still, the clients cannot just decide to lower the difficulty. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Stephen Gornick (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010
|
|
June 07, 2011, 03:00:14 AM
Last edit: June 20, 2013, 09:44:18 PM by Stephen Gornick |
|
In many areas of the world, there is not just limited connectivity, there is no Internet connectivity. But does that mean those people would be shut out from using Bitcoin?
Is there a way that Bitcoin transaction can execute via sneakernet? (i.e., the villager and his wallet stay home, but the transaction to pay was transferred to an agent which is then taken to a location that has Internet connectivity)?
Just as a bookend to this thread: - http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/271Also: Transactions when only one party is online - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77608.0 Update: And these as well: Desert island economy on Bitcoin without being connected to the internet? - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106302.0Creating transactions offline: - http://brainwallet.org/#tx |
|
|
|
|
