Bitcoin Forum
August 15, 2018, 06:13:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency?  (Read 8032 times)
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 26, 2013, 03:02:17 PM
 #61

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  Grin

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
1534313609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313609
Reply with quote  #2

1534313609
Report to moderator
1534313609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313609
Reply with quote  #2

1534313609
Report to moderator
1534313609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313609
Reply with quote  #2

1534313609
Report to moderator
BOUNTY PORTALS
BLOG
WHERE BOUNTY MANAGEMENT
MEETS AUTOMATION
SIGNATURE CAMPAIGNS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
MEDIA CAMPAIGNS
AND MORE!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534313609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313609
Reply with quote  #2

1534313609
Report to moderator
1534313609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313609
Reply with quote  #2

1534313609
Report to moderator
1534313609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534313609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534313609
Reply with quote  #2

1534313609
Report to moderator
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001


Academy


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 04:48:40 PM
 #62

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  Grin

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.


Typically, people ignore you not for sticking your neck out, but for being a complete douchebag about it. Also, it's rather difficult to get 62 people to think you are so not worth their time, that they actually take the time to click the "Ignore" button instead of simply scrolling past your post.

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 26, 2013, 05:25:11 PM
 #63

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  Grin

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.


Typically, people ignore you not for sticking your neck out, but for being a complete douchebag about it. Also, it's rather difficult to get 62 people to think you are so not worth their time, that they actually take the time to click the "Ignore" button instead of simply scrolling past your post.

Let's remember who was the first douchebag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525396#msg3525396

Quote from: Rassah
My apologies, I did not realize that you were a crazy person. Cary on.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001


Academy


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 08:37:33 PM
 #64

Let's remember who was the first douchebag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525396#msg3525396

Quote from: Rassah
My apologies, I did not realize that you were a crazy person. Cary on.


Well... yes... but in my defence, it turned out that my initial gut instinct wasn't wrong  Grin

romerun
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001


Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.


View Profile
November 26, 2013, 08:52:09 PM
 #65

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.
Firedrake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 26, 2013, 09:08:13 PM
 #66

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.

I've seen the "coffee" argument before (and may have used it once before). What would be possible outcomes to overcome it?

BitcoinSports.eu ✔ Bitcoin Sports Betting ✔ No Account Needed ✔ Play or Invest (http://www.bitcoinsports.eu)
Ekaros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 26, 2013, 09:13:37 PM
 #67

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.

I've seen the "coffee" argument before (and may have used it once before). What would be possible outcomes to overcome it?

Payment providers, credit cards... Which is basically back to status quo...


12pA5nZB5AoXZaaEeoxh5bNqUGXwUUp3Uv
http://firstbits.com/1qdiz
Feel free to help poor student!
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001


Academy


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 10:03:06 PM
 #68

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.

Only temporary limit while devs still work on improving the system. It's still in beta, and they don't want it to explode in use before its ready. Eventually, transaction limits will be removed, blockchain will be pruned, and the system will be able to handle way more transactions per second than VISA or anyone else (it can already handle such volume with current technology, but we don't want to force people to download 500MB blocks just yet  Wink)

I_bitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 26, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
 #69

Yes.

http://kids.britannica.com/elementary/art-88145/Different-countries-have-different-currencies-or-kinds-of-money


No matter where you go, there you are.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 27, 2013, 07:54:04 PM
 #70

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.

I've seen the "coffee" argument before (and may have used it once before). What would be possible outcomes to overcome it?

Bitcoin specie, for one.
Gyft cards for another
Bitcoin Asset backed debit cards...
New code...

The market will resolve this, probably around the time that a few more coffee shops start accepting bitcoin.

I feel like I should be adding #bitcoinisinbeta to everything now.
Unrealistic expectations are overextending it and folks will be let down if this is not all done yesterday.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
XBBlade
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 27, 2013, 08:42:00 PM
 #71

Unfortunately for me, I haven't been around bitcoin for long enough, just a few months, however I really believe in it.

I believe this first one is a world first:- (unless ofc you know better?)

To do my bit I've setup wallets on my daughters Phones and I pay their pocket money (allowance I think USA refer to it as) in bitcoins. They love to watch it increase daily. To cash out I buy them back at the current rate whenever they require.

I have also setup accepting payment by bitcoin for a couple of small real world (not online) business that I own.

I'm working on paying staff by bitcoins too, if not fully, at least in part.

What's your help in spreading it to the masses?

Do you really believe in bitcoin as a currency?

Hahah Good you didn't start in 2010. I mean, if you had to pay them out now... (and didn't invest yourself..)

But to be ontopic: yes I do believe in BTC
I_bitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 27, 2013, 09:18:12 PM
 #72

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.

Only temporary limit while devs still work on improving the system. It's still in beta, and they don't want it to explode in use before its ready. Eventually, transaction limits will be removed, blockchain will be pruned, and the system will be able to handle way more transactions per second than VISA or anyone else (it can already handle such volume with current technology, but we don't want to force people to download 500MB blocks just yet  Wink)

Have not seen the recent work by the devs and you don't know me :-).   That said, spent a lot of time reviewing the design and firmly believe that this sucker will scale quite well (so I agree with you Rassah).

Not everyone will be able to run a full node, that is very very clear.  There will be plenty of people who donate a node due to the advantage it brings in transaction speed/identification and the bandwidth available to the typical business should allow for full nodes.

Also, am doubting that the speed to push new blocks (from a miner perspective) is as bad as folks think.   Decent size datacenters have at least 10G uplinks and the main penalty is going to be on those miners/pools that are far away from each other.    Australia, for example, may struggle to win at mining as consistently as places that are "closer" and "denser."

It would be interesting to see an analysis of time to block vs. block size to date (just to see if there are any correlations on this).   Still need to do that unless someone has already done it?


No matter where you go, there you are.
AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 01:05:48 AM
 #73

if I have it right the maximum number of transactions btc network can handle is 7 per sec. coffee purchase and walmart trip has to go offchain eventually.

Only temporary limit while devs still work on improving the system. It's still in beta, and they don't want it to explode in use before its ready. Eventually, transaction limits will be removed, blockchain will be pruned, and the system will be able to handle way more transactions per second than VISA or anyone else (it can already handle such volume with current technology, but we don't want to force people to download 500MB blocks just yet  Wink)

Have not seen the recent work by the devs and you don't know me :-).   That said, spent a lot of time reviewing the design and firmly believe that this sucker will scale quite well (so I agree with you Rassah).

Not everyone will be able to run a full node, that is very very clear.  There will be plenty of people who donate a node due to the advantage it brings in transaction speed/identification and the bandwidth available to the typical business should allow for full nodes.

Also, am doubting that the speed to push new blocks (from a miner perspective) is as bad as folks think.   Decent size datacenters have at least 10G uplinks and the main penalty is going to be on those miners/pools that are far away from each other.    Australia, for example, may struggle to win at mining as consistently as places that are "closer" and "denser."

It would be interesting to see an analysis of time to block vs. block size to date (just to see if there are any correlations on this).   Still need to do that unless someone has already done it?

The block propagation time is already 4.5 seconds (I don't know why they took down that linked page, I had discussed in depth a solution to selfish-mining attack on that page). As you may know the equation for orphan rate depends on block propagation time, and  500MB block sizes will increase that propagation delay.

Any way, that "coming" (we can't be sure the vested interests of mining will accept it) fix doesn't fix the fact that transaction fees in Bitcoin are always rising nominally or the relative security must implode, but debit card payments I believe have a fixed fee in some cases (not percentage). Bitcoin devs propose lowering the fee, to counter-act this effect, but the transaction fee is a market rate and it appears to me it will be a Spiraling Fee.


Copying those posts here, just in case they delete the blog page again.

Quote
My proposed fix is nonsense, because if the relay is cooperating in the attack by sharing the secret with a selfish-mining pool, then the pool still knows which shares to withhold. So any postulated extra oversight that could be applied to the relay is nonsense. Apologies.

However, I just realized that the selfish-mining attack can be easily defeated. I was originally thinking the pool miners can only spy on their own shares, not the shares of the others in the pool, in terms of knowing that the pool received the winning share. However, I've realized that when the pool starts mining the withheld share, then all miners in the pool will know it because they must be told to solve a new block.

Thus, this selfish-mining attack can be defeated if all pools join as miners of the other pools.

If altcoins were to implement Meni Rosenfeld's oblivous shares, the above counter-measure would only apply to know which pools are selfish-mining, and would not enable the competing pools to start mining on the withheld block. If oblivious shares is implemented, then relays would need to be employed so that competing pools could poll the relays for the new hash to mine when their spying on a selfish-mining pool reveals a withheld block solution.

Also Daniel Larimer has proposed selecting the block with the lowest hash solution within the propagation delay of the network, as another fix for selfish-mining.

Quote
Hey why did you take down the Block Propagation blog page, I had elaborated on my suggested solution.

Emin had countered by stating that the pool could change the hash when adding more transactions. Someone pointed out that the hash of the previous block would change. I pointed out that pool miners have an incentive to require the pool to provide the previous block hash, because if selfish-mining becomes widespread then the system will be taken over by one entity eventually.

I also added that an attacker which doesn't employ a public pool can't be spied on, yet it also can't leverage the domino cascade of employing public miners to mine the withheld share, since this could be spied on.

I contemplated whether it is possible to detect which pool miners are the spies. The spies can mine the withheld share without broadcasting. If all pools spy on each other, then the outcome is the same as if it was broadcasted, but without detection of the spies.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
Bill Bisco
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 109
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 03:36:36 AM
 #74

I do believe in Bitcoin as a currency.  I think Bitcoin's value will skyrocket and other currencies will come into regular everyday use.  But, I believe Bitcoin will continue to be traded for a long time.  Grin

BTC: 1PVqE4eM8uBJ7Xb9rCsCLajp5YSi6p8oQ6
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
I_bitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 02:43:57 PM
 #75


The block propagation time is already 4.5 seconds (I don't know why they took down that linked page, I had discussed in depth a solution to selfish-mining attack on that page). As you may know the equation for orphan rate depends on block propagation time, and  500MB block sizes will increase that propagation delay.

I am hoping to get a look at correlations between propagation delay and block size.    This would give us a good sense of what will happen as we work to grow the TPS.   4.5 seconds only gives me one data point and does not also provide the block size.   If someone has prop. delay plus block size source of data that would be awesome to take a look at.   Perhaps my question belongs in the dev forum.


No matter where you go, there you are.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001


Academy


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2013, 03:49:35 AM
 #76

The block propagation time is already 4.5 seconds (I don't know why they took down that linked page, I had discussed in depth a solution to selfish-mining attack on that page). As you may know the equation for orphan rate depends on block propagation time, and  500MB block sizes will increase that propagation delay.

Any way, that "coming" (we can't be sure the vested interests of mining will accept it) fix doesn't fix the fact that transaction fees in Bitcoin are always rising nominally or the relative security must implode, but debit card payments I believe have a fixed fee in some cases (not percentage). Bitcoin devs propose lowering the fee, to counter-act this effect, but the transaction fee is a market rate and it appears to me it will be a Spiraling Fee.

Yeah, uh, don't listen to this guy. He just found out about Bitcoin very recently,  claims to have read most of the forum, and has made a decision that Bitcoin is a scam, which he is so convinced of that he refuses to even consider any conflicting evidence. That, plus he is convinced that he is a super genius who is much smarter than you, so anything you say to him is automatically stupid and wrong.

If you want to read the definitive authoritative explanation is scalability, by the developers who actually know what's what, read this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

As for the block size and transaction costs, those will be allowed to float, and will stay low enough to be cheap, but will still be high enough from increased transaction frequency to keep the system secure (instead of 7 transactions a second paying $0.05 each, we'll have 1000 transactions a second paying ¢0.001 each, or something like that). The question of whether transactions will be high enough, or spiral towards zero, was thoroughly discussed over two years ago, and the conclusion was that there are a few ways for miners to compete on transaction costs that keep them above 0, and keep Bitcoin secure.

AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 30, 2013, 04:24:31 AM
 #77

Rassah has stated that he is intentionally spreading FUD to try to discredit me.

Here are the posts to read where he says that and makes a fool out of himself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349869.msg3774203#msg3774203 (quote of where he stated)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349869.msg3774588#msg3774588

Here is the post from Rassah a month ago where I was being polite to everyone and he called me crazy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525437#msg3525437

And here are the posts as to why Bitcoin's funding for mining is insufficient and proportional to its value (BTC price can't grow if mining funding doesn't grow proportionally):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=350536.msg3764768#msg3764768 (most direct to the point)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=352103.msg3773927#msg3773927
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349869.msg3773318#msg3773318

Checkmate Rassah and Bitcoin.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 30, 2013, 06:09:26 AM
 #78

Unfortunately I think the "miners are going out of business" concern troll will be with Bitcoin for a long time.  There is just way too much potential profit to be made by erecting even the smallest roadblocks in the way of mining competition for them to ever die out completely.

I for one am looking forward to the next six months or so, during which the growth of Bitcoin will be fueled by the sweet tears of regret produced in the coming, massive miner holocaust.  I can only lament the fact that most of them will be doing their pleading and complaining in a language I don't speak.   Cry

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001


Academy


View Profile WWW
November 30, 2013, 03:05:38 PM
 #79

I suggest instead of continuing to allow him to fill thread after thread with his nonsense and allow him to continuously burry rebuttals to his idiocy under more FUD, that people simply reply that AnonyMint doesn't understand the system, is wrong, and that others should just ignore him.

P.S. I said that AnonyMint was the one hurrying rebuttals to his FUD with even more FUD, not that others, or I, should cover his FUD with our own FUD. As in AnonyMint makes up bullshit claims, people reply to point out and explain why his claims are bullshit, and AnonyMins responds with so many of his own posts, self-replies, and extra bullshit, that the explanations of why his original claims are wrong get covered up in even more bullshit. Hope that clears it up a bit.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001


Academy


View Profile WWW
November 30, 2013, 03:07:45 PM
 #80

Here is the post from Rassah a month ago where I was being polite to everyone and he called me crazy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525437#msg3525437

Judging by your current reputation and ignore status, I would say I had excellent foresight! Must be my 160 IQ  Grin

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!