Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2017, 03:22:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 [989] 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1903037 times)
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 04:20:51 AM
 #19761

How is it all that justified Outahere.   Isnt POS just biased to the biggest holders, Im not sure how every negative you mention comes from or just from that main point ?

1495682578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682578
Reply with quote  #2

1495682578
Report to moderator
1495682578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682578
Reply with quote  #2

1495682578
Report to moderator
POLONIEX TRADING SIGNALS
+50% Profit and more via TELEGRAM
ALTCOINTRADER.CO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495682578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682578
Reply with quote  #2

1495682578
Report to moderator
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 04:22:50 AM
 #19762

Your prose is amazingly polished and clear. You are a professor of something. Philosophy is my guess
Uh, thanks! Yes, a prof of Computer Science, at a public univ in Brazil.

prof. bitcoin troll. ... all of your claims in that lengthy (worthless) prose are unsubstantiated of course.

I wouldn't say it was worthless or unsubstantiated, but a little mislead.  The main point being the lack of decentralization and the need to trust 3rd parties (mining pools).  However, you could say that regardless of how decentralized bitcoin is or was, it always relies on miners (pools) to secure the blockchain, whether this is 4, 40, 400, 4000 etc.. regardless of the #, they could at any time decide to collude for 51% hashing power.  There is no incentive for pools to conspire and regardless of the number of pools needed to reach 51%, there will always be a certain # of pools that "could" conspire.  There are 4 US banks that could conspire to destroy the USD, but what incentive do they have to do so?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 04:32:47 AM
 #19763

Your prose is amazingly polished and clear. You are a professor of something. Philosophy is my guess
Uh, thanks! Yes, a prof of Computer Science, at a public univ in Brazil.

prof. bitcoin troll. ... all of your claims in that lengthy (worthless) prose are unsubstantiated of course.

I wouldn't say it was worthless or unsubstantiated, but a little mislead.  The main point being the lack of decentralization and the need to trust 3rd parties (mining pools).  However, you could say that regardless of how decentralized bitcoin is or was, it always relies on miners (pools) to secure the blockchain, whether this is 4, 40, 400, 4000 etc.. regardless of the #, they could at any time decide to collude for 51% hashing power.  There is no incentive for pools to conspire and regardless of the number of pools needed to reach 51%, there will always be a certain # of pools that "could" conspire.  There are 4 US banks that could conspire to destroy the USD, but what incentive do they have to do so?

now imagine eying a SC for possible attack if you're a large pool.  esp a SC like Zerocoin which, if you're a US based pool, was made illegal by the US gvt.  you see thousands of scBTC riding Zerocoin yet you can't participate b/c you don't want to go to jail.  what might you do?
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 04:42:25 AM
 #19764


now imagine eying a SC for possible attack if you're a large pool.  esp a SC like Zerocoin which, if you're a US based pool, was made illegal by the US gvt.  you see thousands of scBTC riding Zerocoin yet you can't participate b/c you don't want to go to jail.  what might you do?

Not sure I understand.  Are you referring to the legality of securing the blockchain as a result of SC?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 05:03:19 AM
 #19765

Your prose is amazingly polished and clear. You are a professor of something. Philosophy is my guess
Uh, thanks! Yes, a prof of Computer Science, at a public univ in Brazil.

prof. bitcoin troll. ... all of your claims in that lengthy (worthless) prose are unsubstantiated of course.
Aww, give him a break, it is a public Uni, so government payroll and in a country arguably even more socialist than the US.  It is a handicap difficult for most to overcome, at least until they are tenured.
We can't expect him to even nibble at the hand that feeds him.  Even though the criticisms are fairly speculative, at least he is looking at it.

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
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 06:00:36 AM
 #19766

How is it all that justified Outahere.   Isnt POS just biased to the biggest holders, Im not sure how every negative you mention comes from or just from that main point ?
It's not about the biggest holders, it's about the fact that you don't even know if there are holders big enough to covertly double spend or reverse selective transactions. I have been against PoS since I first heard about it and try to point out the moral arguments about the social based system claiming to replace an energy based system. I've posted hundreds of times against PoS, but feel it's just not going to reach people because humans have two distinctly different amygdala responses to perception of threat. One of the few things I agree with Stefan Molyneux as he puts it "The reality of political power is very simple: bad farmers own crops and livestock -- good farmers own human beings..." and PoS is an ideal model for farming human beings.

I am not against people developing PoS technology, but I think it will ultimately fail.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 08:40:51 AM
 #19767

but aren't UTXO also held in memory?:

UTXO are tracked by every full-node bitcoin client in a database held in memory, called the UTXO set or UTXO pool.
http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1234000001802/ch05.html#tx_inputs_outputs

Great ebook by Andreas!
Yep, the UTXO set is the essence of the blockchain, however, IBLT is solely concerned with zero-conf tx which want to get into the blockchain  Smiley.

i assume you mean high volumes of unconfirmed tx's.  if so, how do we make the transition from the existing standard low volume method to IBLT?

Yes, and a proof of principle is already proposed: implementing it on top of the block relay service, which transmits lists of new-block tx hashes to subscribing nodes.

The reason is that right now the whole network could agree on the same 2000 unconfirmed tx, real-world business, but the next block mined can contain none of them. It could be full of previously unknown gambling dice-bot spam tx, a set which is 100% different. Because these tx validly spend UTXO, then the block is accepted, and the 2000 unconfirmed tx have to wait for the next block.

how is this possible?  i thought the unconf tx sets differences were supposed to be currently quite low which is the reason for IBLT in the first place? (sounds like you're saying we, in fact, don't have enough volume to make IBLT practical as of today)
...
so how do miners know which unconf tx's are known vs unknown, ie, which to incl in the IBLT to enhance block acceptance ?

The unconf tx sets differences are quite low. Unknown tx's are those which have not been broadcast to the network, and are known only to the miner who might have got them direct from a spammer source (for a fee). I was only giving an example of how, under the existing paradigm, a new block can consist of secret or private tx, not previously broadcast. So, although there is good consensus on unconf tx, the consensus can be ignored. Volumes are currently not high enough to make IBLT a noticeabe improvement to what we have now.

how do you arrive at 500KB or 1MB?  or are you just using the current 1MB block limitation of today into which you would fit the IBLT?  so are you saying that a 1MB sized IBLT equals 1500 diffs or an estimated 1% difference in unconf tx sets across network nodes or an equivalent 150,000 tx's block?

I was just using the current limitation, and also noting that 1MB blocks are occasionally happening already. The success of any node decoding an IBLT is probabilistic. The smaller an IBLT is, the higher the probability of decode failure. So it makes sense to start at a largish, workable size which can support a decent number of differences, such as 1500. The final block size, written to disk, could be smaller than 1MB, and might normally be for a while, but the disk blocks still grow with the ecosystem volume. It might take many years to hit 150,000 tx per block, which would* max out the 1MB IBLT.

*likely, but not necessarily

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:01:53 AM
 #19768

The USD desperately wants to appreciate.

The reason the USD lost so much value over the last century was due, not to base money printing, but to credit expansion, a.k.a debt issuance.

Debt is temporary. It's either repaid, or else defaulted. Either way of resolving debt shrinks the money supply as much as the original issuance expanded it.

As long as the population was growing, and as long as the middle class had positive savings, it was possible to expand credit. Now both conditions are no longer true.

Since it's no longer possible to continue credit expansion, the only way to stop the deflation caused by debt repayment and defaults is to print more base money (QE).

When QE stops, the USD resumes its natural appreciation.

Exactly with an additional subtlety. Not only does the Fed have to print, they have to stimulate confidence because they can never print enough to fill the debt hole  and especially the derivatives mountain. If anything, the last 6 years has shown dubious levels of confidence, if any, along with demonstrably worse real wage growth. The Internet has spawned nearly instantaneous documentation of all the stealing going on.

The last few ramps this year have been nearly vertical short squeezes by the invisible hand which shows increasing desperation, imo. Now is the time to be cautious.  

sidhuajag, I really don't think you're gonna find your masses piling into a final blow off top.
What makes you think its over fundamentally? The flash crash looked like it was over but the fed didnt let it happen...

It may consolodate until next leg up until rates rise enough to become unsustainable..

Usd and stocks will return to positive correlation as they are doing now which means the real bull may just be getting started. I have 32k on dow as first target.

When an incandescent bulb blows, then first it flickers, then it shines brightest then it pops!

2008 was the flicker, right now we are shining brighter... how much more before the filament gives out!?

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596

Newbie


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:04:58 AM
 #19769

...and try to point out the moral arguments about the social economy based system claiming to replace an energy based energy wasting system.

FTFY, you are welcome.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:08:22 AM
 #19770

When an incandescent bulb blows, then first it flickers, then it shines brightest then it pops!

2008 was the flicker, right now we are shining brighter... how much more before the filament gives out!?
Bulbs can last a hundred years or more.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:43:27 AM
 #19771

The USD desperately wants to appreciate.

The reason the USD lost so much value over the last century was due, not to base money printing, but to credit expansion, a.k.a debt issuance.

Debt is temporary. It's either repaid, or else defaulted. Either way of resolving debt shrinks the money supply as much as the original issuance expanded it.

As long as the population was growing, and as long as the middle class had positive savings, it was possible to expand credit. Now both conditions are no longer true.

Since it's no longer possible to continue credit expansion, the only way to stop the deflation caused by debt repayment and defaults is to print more base money (QE).

When QE stops, the USD resumes its natural appreciation.

I have to chime in on this one.  Tongue
When debt is created the interest to repay the debt is NOT also created, therefore the entire system is rigged to be a literal PONZI. It is a pyramid scheme in which the only way to repay interest is for more people to go into debt.  Repaying debt doesn't shrink the money supply as much as the original issuance expanded it because the interest added to the debt makes the total debt bigger than the issuance.

Fundamental misunderstanding here. New money does not have to be created for paying interest. Old money is good enough. In fact, money is not needed at all, it could be paid in kind.

For instance, you lend me USD2000 to be paid back in half a year, for that you can use my swimming pool as much as you like.

When you loan money to someone, you either have to delay some consumption, or delay some investment, or you just have your consumption or investment potential frozen for the duration of the loan. For those inconveniences, you want compensation, which is the interest. The loaner can use, invest, or have the power to consume or invest before he has saved. For that privilege he has to pay.

Ultimately, the interest, or the price of the loan agreement (not "the price of money", this is an inaccurate phrase) comes from the time preferences of the humans involved in the agreement.

No new money is really created in a loan (base money), but even without that, the fact that the loan exists means that the parties together feel that they have more economic power, therefore the value of money is affected. This is what the higher M's (M1...Mn money volume) tries to express.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:43:49 AM
 #19772

When an incandescent bulb blows, then first it flickers, then it shines brightest then it pops!

2008 was the flicker, right now we are shining brighter... how much more before the filament gives out!?
Bulbs can last a hundred years or more.

For sure they can but they rarely pop without the flicker/brightness combo Wink

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:51:33 AM
 #19773

When an incandescent bulb blows, then first it flickers, then it shines brightest then it pops!

2008 was the flicker, right now we are shining brighter... how much more before the filament gives out!?
Bulbs can last a hundred years or more.

For sure they can but they rarely pop without the flicker/brightness combo Wink
Or like the Edison Tower they use a fake bulb and illuminate it with various bulbs.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:02:03 AM
 #19774

If a cartel of miners tried to block all transactions, there would be code for a hard fork within 3 hours making some trivial change to the PoW that rendered the current mining industry worthless and the hard fork itself would probably happen within a few days. And then life would continue on as usual, except that the next set of miners would know how suicidal such a move would be (and on a more contemplative schedule further changes would be made).

So, according to that post, the cartel cannot force the users to do a compatible change the protocol because the users who do not want any change to the original protocol would immediately agree to make an incompatible change to the protocol.  Makes sense...

That hard fork would of course prevent *all* existing miners, including the faithful ones, from working on the 'born-again orthodox' chain.  That chain would be no different from any other junk altcoin with a tiny CPU-based network.  The cartel probably would have enough money to rent cloud computing and jam that rebel bitcoin chain too.  Would users choose to run that risk?

Even if the rebel fork survives, it will in time see its mining get centralized again.  That is, users may escape from *that* cartel, but not from the centralization of mining itself.

If the rebels opt for a hard fork, exchanges and payment processors would still have to upgrade their software anyway, only they would have to choose between the cartel's chain or the rebel chain.  Which one would seem to be a safer bet?

Among the users who are not willing to switch to the cartel, many will not upgrade to the rebel version right away; instead they will just stop using bitcoin until the winner has emerged.  And the rebels could always defect the ranks at any time, with no penalty or risk, and they will find their coins still there in the cartel's fork, minus any possibly even most of the transactions that they made since the fork.

Only ideologically motivated bitcoiners would be bothered by a proposed change in the protocol like the one I outlined in my reddit post.  How many of those are there?  The selfish bitcoiners will care more about their wealth (current or expected) than saving the world from greedy bankers and fascist government.  Which of the two chains would seem safer in that regard?

If the cartel's change is not too radical, the holders of large hoards of cheap coins will not want to sell, for the same reason that they are not selling now:  they would still hope to make large profits in the future.  On the contrary, they would hold and support the cartel's decision, in order to preserve that expected return.

EDIT: the cartel would probably mirror the transactions of the rebel chain on their chain too, as long as they are valid in both chains.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:23:27 AM
 #19775

you could say that regardless of how decentralized bitcoin is or was, it always relies on miners (pools) to secure the blockchain, whether this is 4, 40, 400, 4000 etc.. regardless of the #, they could at any time decide to collude for 51% hashing power.  There is no incentive for pools to conspire and regardless of the number of pools needed to reach 51%, there will always be a certain # of pools that "could" conspire.  There are 4 US banks that could conspire to destroy the USD, but what incentive do they have to do so?

The largest banks clearly conspire, as an explicit or tacit cartel, to obtain maximum profit.  That is one reason why bank fees are so high compared to the actual costs (including fraud damages) and large banks are so obscenely profitable.

The correctness of the bitcoin protocol apparently was based on the implicit assumption that a sufficiently large number of users would have sufficient hashpower to fight attacks, and, having a vested interest in the health of the network, would want to do so.  (It is the same assumption used to justify democracy with frequent direct elections.)  That assumption is not valid if there are 4 mining entities that hold the majority of the hashpower, and are not even significant holders of bitcoins.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:26:33 AM
 #19776

Your prose is amazingly polished and clear. You are a professor of something. Philosophy is my guess

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi

Dunno why but I though you already knew him.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:27:45 AM
 #19777

Aww, give him a break, it is a public Uni, so government payroll and in a country arguably even more socialist than the US.  It is a handicap difficult for most to overcome, at least until they are tenured.
We can't expect him to even nibble at the hand that feeds him.  Even though the criticisms are fairly speculative, at least he is looking at it.

I am already tenured, actually, so I could badmouth the government at will (which in fact I do) with no risk. 

But of course I can't expect someone who is invested in bitcoin to admit that its future is in danger.  Wink


Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:55:35 AM
 #19778

Aww, give him a break, it is a public Uni, so government payroll and in a country arguably even more socialist than the US.  It is a handicap difficult for most to overcome, at least until they are tenured.
We can't expect him to even nibble at the hand that feeds him.  Even though the criticisms are fairly speculative, at least he is looking at it.

I am already tenured, actually, so I could badmouth the government at will (which in fact I do) with no risk.  

But of course I can't expect someone who is invested in bitcoin to admit that its future is in danger.  Wink


Really? I think that a good investor would be thankful to anybody that let him knows he's losing his  bet. Maybe you think tha all (?) people who bought Bitcoin are blind to the truth.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 12:27:55 PM
 #19779

If a cartel of miners tried to block all transactions, there would be code for a hard fork within 3 hours making some trivial change to the PoW that rendered the current mining industry worthless and the hard fork itself would probably happen within a few days. And then life would continue on as usual, except that the next set of miners would know how suicidal such a move would be (and on a more contemplative schedule further changes would be made).

So, according to that post, the cartel cannot force the users to do a compatible change the protocol because the users who do not want any change to the original protocol would immediately agree to make an incompatible change to the protocol.  Makes sense...

Read the bold portion (which was quoted from your earlier post) and try again.

Quote
That hard fork would of course prevent *all* existing miners, including the faithful ones, from working on the 'born-again orthodox' chain.  That chain would be no different from any other junk altcoin with a tiny CPU-based network.

Actually it would be quite different from a junk altcoin because it would have the support of a few million bitcoin users and all of the rest of the economy that actually wants transactions to happen. Junk altcoins have tiny networks and are insecure because there is no value to motivate mining. That would not be the case with a bitcoin hard fork done in response to miner misbehavior. It would retain at least a large portion of the value of bitcoin (some value loss would likely occur, at least temporarily, in this "war" scenario), and therefore would attract a large and strong mining network. It can't be any other way with thousands of dollars up for grabs every ten minutes.

Quote
The cartel probably would have enough money to rent cloud computing and jam that rebel bitcoin chain too.

Unlikely, they would be too busy explaining to their investors why their stupidity just blew up a few hundred million dollars or more of the investors' money. I highly doubt that cartel would find itself awash in new funding.

Quote
Even if the rebel fork survives, it will in time see its mining get centralized again.  That is, users may escape from *that* cartel, but not from the centralization of mining itself.

You are still missing the point. Some degree of centralization does not give miners absolute power. Miners are participants in the overall economy certainly, significant ones, and it stands to reason they would have some influence, but not the ability to make demands under threat of stopping all transactions.

I haven't read your reddit posts and I'm not particularly interested in doing so until you demonstrate at least the ability to make a logical argument without changing your premise mid-stream, so I can't comment on those.



JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
 #19780

I haven't read your reddit posts so I can't comment on those.

Well, I see now why you keep claiming that millions of users would revolt.

Actually [the rebel hard fork] would be quite different from a junk altcoin because it would have the support of a few million bitcoin users and all of the rest of the economy that actually wants transactions to happen.
But the easiest and safest way to retain access to one's bitcoins and keep issuing transactions, secured by 99% of the current network power, will be to upgrade to the cartel's version, not to the rebel version.

[ ... ] a bitcoin hard fork done in response to miner misbehavior. It would retain at least a large portion of the value of bitcoin (some value loss would likely occur, at least temporarily, in this "war" scenario), and therefore would attract a large and strong mining network. It can't be any other way with thousands of dollars up for grabs every ten minutes.

Recall that the change made by the rebels is such that the cartel cannot mine their fork.  That means that no off-the-shelf mining equipment will be able to mine it either.  The rebel network would have to rely on CPU and GPU mining for months, until manufacturers start selling equipment for it.

The value of the BTC money base will be divided into two currencies, cartelBTC and rebelBTC.  Every bitcoin owner will start off with equal amounts of both, and can choose to issue transactions in either network, or even in both of them.   So their self-interest will not automatically push them to side with the rebels and boycott the cartel.

Quote
Quote
The cartel probably would have enough money to rent cloud computing and jam that rebel bitcoin chain too.

Unlikely, they would be too busy explaining to their investors why their stupidity just blew up a few hundred million dollars or more of the investors' money. I highly doubt that cartel would find itself awash in new funding.
The cartel will have nearly 100% of the existing mining equipment working for them.  It is the rebels who will have to convince investors to build an EH/s network from scratch.

In that scenario that I described, the "protective improvement"  to the protocol would be proposed by the cartel sometime before the next halving.  By that time, the network will still be supported by money from the new adopters who buy the coins produced by the miners.  Which coins would those new users rather buy: cartelBTCs, that live on the largest network built by man, using (almost) the same protocol designed by Satoshi, wich has been tested for more than 6 years; or rebelBTCs, that live on a small CPU/GPU network, using a radically different protocol that was patched together in three days and has been in used for less than a month?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
Pages: « 1 ... 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 [989] 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 ... 1559 »
  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!