Bitcoin really is in trouble.

[revans]

I agree it is a sham. Bitcoin is not currency it is a speculative bubble.

maybe there are people using it as a sham, but there are also people using it as a currency everyday.

Of course, but the activity of non speculators is not sufficient to support current valuation or anything even close to it; even more so now that Silk Road has gone which did give Bitcoin some unique  utility in terms of accessing that market.

have you ever heard of the phrase "listen to the market"?

you can go on all day long with your false assumptions but at the end of this day, yes TODAY, the market is hitting an all time new high.

the message is loud and clear:  you're wrong.

Does the confidence of rampant speculators in any way ameliorate the fundamental flaw in Bitcoin?

fundamental flaw?  according to whom?  you?  stop making me laugh.

the code along with it's socioeconomic design has lasted 5 yrs now and we're at an all time high.  its been vetted upside down and sideways.  you come along and spout off a few "opinions" and expect everyone to listen?

why haven't you already stolen all the money in the top 10 addresses?  oh yeah, you can't.

Where it not for Bitcoin's defacto central bank several billion Bitcoins would still be in circulation.Your hubris is unwarranted.

[1714841871]

1714841871

[1714841871]

1714841871

[1714841871]

1714841871

[cypherdoc]

I agree it is a sham. Bitcoin is not currency it is a speculative bubble.

maybe there are people using it as a sham, but there are also people using it as a currency everyday.

Of course, but the activity of non speculators is not sufficient to support current valuation or anything even close to it; even more so now that Silk Road has gone which did give Bitcoin some unique  utility in terms of accessing that market.

have you ever heard of the phrase "listen to the market"?

you can go on all day long with your false assumptions but at the end of this day, yes TODAY, the market is hitting an all time new high.

the message is loud and clear:  you're wrong.

Does the confidence of rampant speculators in any way ameliorate the fundamental flaw in Bitcoin?

fundamental flaw?  according to whom?  you?  stop making me laugh.

the code along with it's socioeconomic design has lasted 5 yrs now and we're at an all time high.  its been vetted upside down and sideways.  you come along and spout off a few "opinions" and expect everyone to listen?

why haven't you already stolen all the money in the top 10 addresses?  oh yeah, you can't.

Where it not for Bitcoin's defacto central bank several billion Bitcoins would still be in circulation.Your hubris is unwarranted.

take some time to study.  you really do sound like an idiot to ppl around here.

the core development team is not a de facto central bank.  not even close.

[revans]

I agree it is a sham. Bitcoin is not currency it is a speculative bubble.

maybe there are people using it as a sham, but there are also people using it as a currency everyday.

Of course, but the activity of non speculators is not sufficient to support current valuation or anything even close to it; even more so now that Silk Road has gone which did give Bitcoin some unique  utility in terms of accessing that market.

have you ever heard of the phrase "listen to the market"?

you can go on all day long with your false assumptions but at the end of this day, yes TODAY, the market is hitting an all time new high.

the message is loud and clear:  you're wrong.

Does the confidence of rampant speculators in any way ameliorate the fundamental flaw in Bitcoin?

fundamental flaw?  according to whom?  you?  stop making me laugh.

the code along with it's socioeconomic design has lasted 5 yrs now and we're at an all time high.  its been vetted upside down and sideways.  you come along and spout off a few "opinions" and expect everyone to listen?

why haven't you already stolen all the money in the top 10 addresses?  oh yeah, you can't.

Where it not for Bitcoin's defacto central bank several billion Bitcoins would still be in circulation.Your hubris is unwarranted.

take some time to study.  you really do sound like an idiot to ppl around here.

the core development team is not a de facto central bank.  not even close.

They can blacklist Bitcoins, reverse transactions and penalise people choosing to use a client other than their own. Sound like a central authority to me.

[hayek]

greed is good, bring the greed. HEY, can we get a little extra greed over here?

[papaminer]

title of this thread should be:


revans really is in trouble.

coz the bitcoin boat LEFT him

[revans]

title of this thread should be:


revans really is in trouble.

coz the bitcoin boat LEFT him

I was on it, I got off, ill-gotten gains in tow*, and looked at different solutions that are not merely tools for speculators.


* As gains were derived from Bankster style speculators driving up the price the resultant state fiat was disposed of in socially useful ways.

[tvbcof]

The rather low barrier to a fork is actually one of the things which makes Bitcoin very compelling to me.  This creates a situation where the development team is empowered by retaining the trust and the direction that the majority users find desirable (or at least tolerable.)

A fork would have a significant negative impact on valuations since it would produce a LOT of uncertainty.  Further, a fork would probably actually come in waves of multiple simultaneous forks.

A critical thing to note, however, is that a code fork could not in and of itself remove value from the block chain.  I think it more than likely that the fork which comes out on top will be treating the legacy blockchain as it's source of truth (value.)  Thus, anyone employing Bitcoin should probably anticipate the potential need to defer transactions for extended periods of time.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I agree it is a sham. Bitcoin is not currency it is a speculative bubble.

maybe there are people using it as a sham, but there are also people using it as a currency everyday.

Of course, but the activity of non speculators is not sufficient to support current valuation or anything even close to it; even more so now that Silk Road has gone which did give Bitcoin some unique  utility in terms of accessing that market.

have you ever heard of the phrase "listen to the market"?

you can go on all day long with your false assumptions but at the end of this day, yes TODAY, the market is hitting an all time new high.

the message is loud and clear:  you're wrong.

Does the confidence of rampant speculators in any way ameliorate the fundamental flaw in Bitcoin?

fundamental flaw?  according to whom?  you?  stop making me laugh.

the code along with it's socioeconomic design has lasted 5 yrs now and we're at an all time high.  its been vetted upside down and sideways.  you come along and spout off a few "opinions" and expect everyone to listen?

why haven't you already stolen all the money in the top 10 addresses?  oh yeah, you can't.

Where it not for Bitcoin's defacto central bank several billion Bitcoins would still be in circulation.Your hubris is unwarranted.

take some time to study.  you really do sound like an idiot to ppl around here.

the core development team is not a de facto central bank.  not even close.

They can blacklist Bitcoins, reverse transactions and penalise people choosing to use a client other than their own. Sound like a central authority to me.

they can what?!   

start here:

bitcoin.com

[justusranvier]

Don't feed the troll.

[revans]

I agree it is a sham. Bitcoin is not currency it is a speculative bubble.

maybe there are people using it as a sham, but there are also people using it as a currency everyday.

Of course, but the activity of non speculators is not sufficient to support current valuation or anything even close to it; even more so now that Silk Road has gone which did give Bitcoin some unique  utility in terms of accessing that market.

have you ever heard of the phrase "listen to the market"?

you can go on all day long with your false assumptions but at the end of this day, yes TODAY, the market is hitting an all time new high.

the message is loud and clear:  you're wrong.

Does the confidence of rampant speculators in any way ameliorate the fundamental flaw in Bitcoin?

fundamental flaw?  according to whom?  you?  stop making me laugh.

the code along with it's socioeconomic design has lasted 5 yrs now and we're at an all time high.  its been vetted upside down and sideways.  you come along and spout off a few "opinions" and expect everyone to listen?

why haven't you already stolen all the money in the top 10 addresses?  oh yeah, you can't.

Where it not for Bitcoin's defacto central bank several billion Bitcoins would still be in circulation.Your hubris is unwarranted.

take some time to study.  you really do sound like an idiot to ppl around here.

the core development team is not a de facto central bank.  not even close.

They can blacklist Bitcoins, reverse transactions and penalise people choosing to use a client other than their own. Sound like a central authority to me.

they can what?!   

start here:

bitcoin.com

Given that one of those things has already been done, which of the other two is giving you problems?

[RoadToHell]

[edit]troll food deleted[/edit]

[xavier]

Ahh man. This post is for the benefit of revans and everyone else who is thinking the same things. I couldn't resist posting it , sorry .. just in one of those moods. Feel free to skip the follow diatribe.

at least you got one thing right.

we're just getting started.

@revans:

Fyi, your posts here in Bitcoin Discussion, and in the other forums (Technical) are getting a little annoying.

Obviously you are trying to use fear and panic to cause a market drop. Let me save you some time. FYI, this strategy has been used in this community hundreds of times already by similar people to yourself with similar motives.  So, now most people invested in bitcoin from the beginning have become/are becoming accustomed to it. That's probably one of the reasons that your posts have had little - if any - effect on the price today. Perhaps stop wasting more of your (and everyone else's - who has to read your drivel) time with any more? Let's just put it simply like this: If you are so clever that you can predict "we're just getting started" and can bring down bitcoin, well take a short position on Bitfinex and then run your 51% attack and profit. Also (just an aside), maybe before you do it it would be nice to know who you are - so we can share in your glory

I am not trying to condone any speculators, but I can understand where they are coming from. Bitcoin is an investment that offers incredibly high rewards - if it succeeds. So it is only natural that speculators will enter the market. That is the nature of a public market. Speculators are also helping to bring bitcoin out to the media and attention of the public. That in turn attracts more research and "eyes" into bitcoin, which only helps to draw attention to more vulnerabilities.

Ok , Most people here understand that bitcoin is a risky proposition. A 51% attack is just one of the risks that has been present since the start, and this most recent paper or "discovery" is another manifestation of that. The only difference between what was written up in this paper is that a few academics actually formalized the problem, put some statistics to work to calculate a probability (and it seems fleshed out more the technical means of how it could work), and proposed a fix to the protocol.

Anyhow.... I agree with this paper that a selfish node attack could be utilized to make a 51% attack easier. A "selfish miner" attack is not a new proposition and has been known about in the BTC community for a long time.

A selfish miner attack would allow someone to attack the network with a smaller % of share than 51%, however they would still require enough of a share to give them a good probability of consistantly "getting ahead" of the public blockchain. However, the attack would work exactly the same way as a 51% attack, so in this respect this paper is just another manifestation of a 51% attack. A few more things about a 51% attack. (1) It should also be noted that such an attack has only existed in theory and never succeeded against bitcoin - as far as I know, anyway. And I am sure there have been many people who tried. (2) There are features that can be implemented to the protocol to make a selfish miner attack more difficult. It would be in everyone's interest in the BTC community to implement these features asap. That would make such an attack less probable.

Finally ...... One good thing that may come from your posts is that the more you continue to post this stuff, the more likely it becomes that the bitcoin core devs will implement more security measures into the procol.

By the way @nak .... I suggest you delete this from your post:

I think we're beyond the speculative stage of bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

title of this thread should be:


revans really is in trouble.

coz the bitcoin boat LEFT him

I got off, and looked at different solutions that are not merely tools for speculators.

So, what's your new cult revans? Everyone really wants to know.

[Barek]

So, what's your new cult revans? Everyone really wants to know.

Careful, Bankster!

 

[revans]

Ahh man. This post is for the benefit of revans and everyone else who is thinking the same things. I couldn't resist posting it , sorry .. just in one of those moods. Feel free to skip the follow diatribe.

at least you got one thing right.

we're just getting started.

@revans:

Fyi, your posts here in Bitcoin Discussion, and in the other forums (Technical) are getting a little annoying.

Obviously you are trying to use fear and panic to cause a market drop. Let me save you some time. FYI, this strategy has been used in this community hundreds of times already by similar people to yourself with similar motives.  So, now most people invested in bitcoin from the beginning have become/are becoming accustomed to it. That's probably one of the reasons that your posts have had little - if any - effect on the price today. Perhaps stop wasting more of your (and everyone else's - who has to read your drivel) time with any more? Let's just put it simply like this: If you are so clever that you can predict "we're just getting started" and can bring down bitcoin, well take a short position on Bitfinex and then run your 51% attack and profit. Also (just an aside), maybe before you do it it would be nice to know who you are - so we can share in your glory

I am not trying to condone any speculators, but I can understand where they are coming from. Bitcoin is an investment that offers incredibly high rewards - if it succeeds. So it is only natural that speculators will enter the market. That is the nature of a public market. Speculators are also helping to bring bitcoin out to the media and attention of the public. That in turn attracts more research and "eyes" into bitcoin, which only helps to draw attention to more vulnerabilities.

Ok , Most people here understand that bitcoin is a risky proposition. A 51% attack is just one of the risks that has been present since the start, and this most recent paper or "discovery" is another manifestation of that. The only difference between what was written up in this paper is that a few academics actually formalized the problem, put some statistics to work to calculate a probability (and it seems fleshed out more the technical means of how it could work), and proposed a fix to the protocol.

Anyhow.... I agree with this paper that a selfish node attack could be utilized to make a 51% attack easier. A "selfish miner" attack is not a new proposition and has been known about in the BTC community for a long time.

A selfish miner attack would allow someone to attack the network with a smaller % of share than 51%, however they would still require enough of a share to give them a good probability of consistantly "getting ahead" of the public blockchain. However, the attack would work exactly the same way as a 51% attack, so in this respect this paper is just another manifestation of a 51% attack. A few more things about a 51% attack. (1) It should also be noted that such an attack has only existed in theory and never succeeded against bitcoin - as far as I know, anyway. And I am sure there have been many people who tried. (2) There are features that can be implemented to the protocol to make a selfish miner attack more difficult. It would be in everyone's interest in the BTC community to implement these features asap. That would make such an attack less probable.

Finally ...... One good thing that may come from your posts is that the more you continue to post this stuff, the more likely it becomes that the bitcoin core devs will implement more security measures into the procol.

By the way @nak .... I suggest you delete this from your post:

I think we're beyond the speculative stage of bitcoin.

All those words and you neglected to check if the words you were attributing to me were actually posted by me.

[revans]

title of this thread should be:


revans really is in trouble.

coz the bitcoin boat LEFT him

I got off, and looked at different solutions that are not merely tools for speculators.

So, what's your new cult revans? Everyone really wants to know.

Cults are for the easily led, the woolly minded, and those seeking salvation. I have no time for Messianic crackpots and their acolytes and thus Cultcoin is no longer for me.

[Kouye]

I'm actually glad such trolls can freely express themselves here.
Sincerly.

[xavier]

Ahh man. This post is for the benefit of revans and everyone else who is thinking the same things. I couldn't resist posting it , sorry .. just in one of those moods. Feel free to skip the follow diatribe.

at least you got one thing right.

we're just getting started.

@revans:

Fyi, your posts here in Bitcoin Discussion, and in the other forums (Technical) are getting a little annoying.

Obviously you are trying to use fear and panic to cause a market drop. Let me save you some time. FYI, this strategy has been used in this community hundreds of times already by similar people to yourself with similar motives.  So, now most people invested in bitcoin from the beginning have become/are becoming accustomed to it. That's probably one of the reasons that your posts have had little - if any - effect on the price today. Perhaps stop wasting more of your (and everyone else's - who has to read your drivel) time with any more? Let's just put it simply like this: If you are so clever that you can predict "we're just getting started" and can bring down bitcoin, well take a short position on Bitfinex and then run your 51% attack and profit. Also (just an aside), maybe before you do it it would be nice to know who you are - so we can share in your glory

I am not trying to condone any speculators, but I can understand where they are coming from. Bitcoin is an investment that offers incredibly high rewards - if it succeeds. So it is only natural that speculators will enter the market. That is the nature of a public market. Speculators are also helping to bring bitcoin out to the media and attention of the public. That in turn attracts more research and "eyes" into bitcoin, which only helps to draw attention to more vulnerabilities.

Ok , Most people here understand that bitcoin is a risky proposition. A 51% attack is just one of the risks that has been present since the start, and this most recent paper or "discovery" is another manifestation of that. The only difference between what was written up in this paper is that a few academics actually formalized the problem, put some statistics to work to calculate a probability (and it seems fleshed out more the technical means of how it could work), and proposed a fix to the protocol.

Anyhow.... I agree with this paper that a selfish node attack could be utilized to make a 51% attack easier. A "selfish miner" attack is not a new proposition and has been known about in the BTC community for a long time.

A selfish miner attack would allow someone to attack the network with a smaller % of share than 51%, however they would still require enough of a share to give them a good probability of consistantly "getting ahead" of the public blockchain. However, the attack would work exactly the same way as a 51% attack, so in this respect this paper is just another manifestation of a 51% attack. A few more things about a 51% attack. (1) It should also be noted that such an attack has only existed in theory and never succeeded against bitcoin - as far as I know, anyway. And I am sure there have been many people who tried. (2) There are features that can be implemented to the protocol to make a selfish miner attack more difficult. It would be in everyone's interest in the BTC community to implement these features asap. That would make such an attack less probable.

Finally ...... One good thing that may come from your posts is that the more you continue to post this stuff, the more likely it becomes that the bitcoin core devs will implement more security measures into the procol.

By the way @nak .... I suggest you delete this from your post:

I think we're beyond the speculative stage of bitcoin.

All those words and you neglected to check if the words you were attributing to me were actually posted my me.

so you lost the argument, right?

now you are going to shut up?

[Carlton Banks]

So, what's your new cult revans? Everyone really wants to know.

Careful, Bankster!

 

Don't worry, I know this this thing is a super try-hard troll-inator. It replied, and had nothing to back up it's claims of "moving on to the real solution", just a bit of blatant sidestepping instead.

[revans]

Ahh man. This post is for the benefit of revans and everyone else who is thinking the same things. I couldn't resist posting it , sorry .. just in one of those moods. Feel free to skip the follow diatribe.

at least you got one thing right.

we're just getting started.

@revans:

Fyi, your posts here in Bitcoin Discussion, and in the other forums (Technical) are getting a little annoying.

Obviously you are trying to use fear and panic to cause a market drop. Let me save you some time. FYI, this strategy has been used in this community hundreds of times already by similar people to yourself with similar motives.  So, now most people invested in bitcoin from the beginning have become/are becoming accustomed to it. That's probably one of the reasons that your posts have had little - if any - effect on the price today. Perhaps stop wasting more of your (and everyone else's - who has to read your drivel) time with any more? Let's just put it simply like this: If you are so clever that you can predict "we're just getting started" and can bring down bitcoin, well take a short position on Bitfinex and then run your 51% attack and profit. Also (just an aside), maybe before you do it it would be nice to know who you are - so we can share in your glory

I am not trying to condone any speculators, but I can understand where they are coming from. Bitcoin is an investment that offers incredibly high rewards - if it succeeds. So it is only natural that speculators will enter the market. That is the nature of a public market. Speculators are also helping to bring bitcoin out to the media and attention of the public. That in turn attracts more research and "eyes" into bitcoin, which only helps to draw attention to more vulnerabilities.

Ok , Most people here understand that bitcoin is a risky proposition. A 51% attack is just one of the risks that has been present since the start, and this most recent paper or "discovery" is another manifestation of that. The only difference between what was written up in this paper is that a few academics actually formalized the problem, put some statistics to work to calculate a probability (and it seems fleshed out more the technical means of how it could work), and proposed a fix to the protocol.

Anyhow.... I agree with this paper that a selfish node attack could be utilized to make a 51% attack easier. A "selfish miner" attack is not a new proposition and has been known about in the BTC community for a long time.

A selfish miner attack would allow someone to attack the network with a smaller % of share than 51%, however they would still require enough of a share to give them a good probability of consistantly "getting ahead" of the public blockchain. However, the attack would work exactly the same way as a 51% attack, so in this respect this paper is just another manifestation of a 51% attack. A few more things about a 51% attack. (1) It should also be noted that such an attack has only existed in theory and never succeeded against bitcoin - as far as I know, anyway. And I am sure there have been many people who tried. (2) There are features that can be implemented to the protocol to make a selfish miner attack more difficult. It would be in everyone's interest in the BTC community to implement these features asap. That would make such an attack less probable.

Finally ...... One good thing that may come from your posts is that the more you continue to post this stuff, the more likely it becomes that the bitcoin core devs will implement more security measures into the procol.

By the way @nak .... I suggest you delete this from your post:

I think we're beyond the speculative stage of bitcoin.

All those words and you neglected to check if the words you were attributing to me were actually posted my me.

so you lost the argument, right?

now you are going to shut up?

There is little merit in debating with someone who seems to lack an understanding of what they are arguing about. Your post is for the most part just anxious dismissal of a reality you fervently hope does not manifest