Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 02:05:09 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 [1083] 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 ... 1557 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2032123 times)
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 05:02:51 PM
 #21641

This is the concept  I have been trying to push for a long time especially as it relates to UST's. I think it's accurate and this guy agrees:

In other words, we’ve reached the limit of what can be accomplished and with NIRP creating new market perversions on an almost daily basis, the unintended consequences of continuing to delve deeper into the new paranormal are making the game ever more dangerous as we now ow have central banks accidentally creating deflation while simultaneously embedding enormous amounts of risk in fixed income markets by sapping every last vestige of liquidity.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-01/are-central-banks-creating-deflation

It is in there, but it could be said simpler: Fucking with the interest rate produces distortions in the investment signals, therefore a misadapted capital structure, which means lower prosperity.


you're right.  i left out the word "f*cking".
1710813909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710813909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710813909
Reply with quote  #2

1710813909
Report to moderator
1710813909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710813909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710813909
Reply with quote  #2

1710813909
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710813909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710813909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710813909
Reply with quote  #2

1710813909
Report to moderator
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 05:20:16 PM
 #21642

Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.

To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the  miner has to unwind the  chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.

 

not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable.  that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished.  the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating. 
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057


Marketing manager - GO MP


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2015, 05:31:25 PM
 #21643

More Moore!

SanDisk unveils 200 GB Micro SD to meet storage requirements of Smartphones at MWC2015:
http://www.techworm.net/2015/03/sandisk-unveils-200-gb-micro-sd-to-meet-storage-requirements-of-smartphones-at-mwc2015.html



That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses)
If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count)
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
March 02, 2015, 05:45:06 PM
 #21644

Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.

To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the  miner has to unwind the  chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.

 

not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable.  that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished.  the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating. 

indeed. not to mention being incredibly vulnerable to DDOS/ hacking, etc.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 05:53:03 PM
 #21645

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 05:56:42 PM
 #21646

More Moore!

SanDisk unveils 200 GB Micro SD to meet storage requirements of Smartphones at MWC2015:
http://www.techworm.net/2015/03/sandisk-unveils-200-gb-micro-sd-to-meet-storage-requirements-of-smartphones-at-mwc2015.html



That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses)
If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count)

well, no, it is exactly what moore's law is about: this same 200Gb micro SD woulda cost about 2 times more 2 years earlier..
plus you can also blame it on the inflation for today's price.
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057


Marketing manager - GO MP


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2015, 06:01:33 PM
 #21647

More Moore!

SanDisk unveils 200 GB Micro SD to meet storage requirements of Smartphones at MWC2015:
http://www.techworm.net/2015/03/sandisk-unveils-200-gb-micro-sd-to-meet-storage-requirements-of-smartphones-at-mwc2015.html



That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses)
If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count)

well, no, it is exactly what moore's law is about: this same 200Gb micro SD woulda cost about 2 times more 2 years earlier..
plus you can also blame it on the inflation for today's price.

I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell).
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:02:51 PM
 #21648

silver leading to the downside; again.  i'd like to see this cycle break to new lows:

Erdogan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:07:06 PM
 #21649

Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.

To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the  miner has to unwind the  chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.

 

not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable.  that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished.  the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating.  

Sure, but the purpose with this one is not to be money, just to create a tamper proof history. Add distributed mining on a small scale to make the system relatively failsafe.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:07:49 PM
 #21650

More Moore!

SanDisk unveils 200 GB Micro SD to meet storage requirements of Smartphones at MWC2015:
http://www.techworm.net/2015/03/sandisk-unveils-200-gb-micro-sd-to-meet-storage-requirements-of-smartphones-at-mwc2015.html



That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses)
If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count)

well, no, it is exactly what moore's law is about: this same 200Gb micro SD woulda cost about 2 times more 2 years earlier..
plus you can also blame it on the inflation for today's price.

I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell).

the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law.

cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:08:07 PM
 #21651

Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.

http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:12:26 PM
 #21652

Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.

To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the  miner has to unwind the  chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.

 

not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable.  that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished.  the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating.  

Sure, but the purpose with this one is not to be money, just to create a tamper proof history. Add distributed mining on a small scale to make the system relatively failsafe.



how much distribution?  10 nodes, 20 nodes, 100 nodes?  how do you motivate them to process the documents?  how do they get paid?  or do the volunteer miners have a collective interest to "do it for free" which then puts into question the possibility of collusion for fraudulent purposes?
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057


Marketing manager - GO MP


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2015, 06:13:57 PM
 #21653

-snip-

I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell).

the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law.


Ergo you don't understand moores law, but it's not your fault education has failed you.

nuff said
Erdogan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:15:26 PM
 #21654

Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.

http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank).

The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!

cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:19:41 PM
 #21655

Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.

http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank).

The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!



Steve Gibson's SQRL project works along this line whereby users login to websites using a private key on their device after being presented a new, freshly generated QR code at each login.  it gets rid of the entire username/pwd concept.
Erdogan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:21:20 PM
 #21656

Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts.

http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank).

The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!



Steve Gibson's SQRL project works along this line whereby users login to websites using a private key on their device after being presented a new, freshly generated QR code at each login.  it gets rid of the entire username/pwd concept.

I am sure useful devices will arrive on the market the next few months.
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:41:22 PM
 #21657

lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
March 02, 2015, 06:55:28 PM
 #21658

nice, what page was that?

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3108
Merit: 1531


yes


View Profile
March 02, 2015, 07:05:48 PM
 #21659

and where is the next page?

cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 02, 2015, 07:11:37 PM
 #21660

grinding higher.  i love grinding.
Pages: « 1 ... 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 [1083] 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 ... 1557 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!