Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:57:06 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 [1239] 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803513 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 05:19:55 PM
 #24761

to those many of you who have never been able to grok POW, here's a pretty good description of why it works:

"The revolutionary part of the blockchain process is how miners manage to keep these blocks accurate and tamper-proof. The easiest way for a layperson to understand this security is not in mathematical terms, but in economic terms. When miners attach a block to the Bitcoin network, they don't just place that block neatly to the adjacent block. They glue the block to the prior block by "burning" energy. Yep, you heard that right. Miners are able to defend the Bitcoin network by burning electricity and creating a cryptographic "glue" out of the process. The total amount of electrical energy burned by all the blockchain's miners in a ten-minute period is the "glue" that affixes the newest block to the prior block. The economic cost of burning energy is "proof" that miners have attested to the contents of the block.

This means that in order to undo the newest block that was just created, an attacker would have to use slightly more energy to break that block off the chain than went into the glue that attached that block to the chain. This concept is the primary and revolutionary innovation that powers a blockchain."


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/behind-the-ingenious-security-feature-that-powers-the-blockchain-1074442-1.html
1480759026
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759026

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759026
Reply with quote  #2

1480759026
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480759026
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759026

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759026
Reply with quote  #2

1480759026
Report to moderator
1480759026
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759026

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759026
Reply with quote  #2

1480759026
Report to moderator
1480759026
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480759026

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480759026
Reply with quote  #2

1480759026
Report to moderator
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 21, 2015, 05:44:22 PM
 #24762

did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.
This might be the part to be most cautious about.

The argument that a Nash equilibrum encourages miners against acting in ways that damage the long term viability of Bitcoin is less obviously true when mining isn't being performed for direct profit.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:01:43 PM
 #24763

did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.
This might be the part to be most cautious about.

The argument that a Nash equilibrum encourages miners against acting in ways that damage the long term viability of Bitcoin is less obviously true when mining isn't being performed for direct profit.

under 21's model, it still can be done for profit.

when it comes to free mkts, esp in developing countries, i will tend to give the common man the benefit of the doubt.  i know there has been alot of talk in here about how stupid these ppl will be when it comes down to the cost/benefit analysis of the mining phone and 21 simply taking advantage of these ppl.  we'll see.  it's just my experience that just b/c a poor man from the streets of a developing country may not be able to do elliptical curve math, they do surprisingly have a keen understanding of what makes or loses them money.  i've been the victim of poor negotiating on my part when dealing with these types of ppl routinely.  if they deem the electrical drain from the mining chip to be costing them money, they will figure out a way to change that and quick.   either by charging in public places or some other work around.  like i said, airports are constructing these free charging kiosks in every major airport.  this has the potential to take us back to those days of 2010-11 with those mining videos on YouTube.  ppl just need to get these devices in their hands for an affordable price.  and if the ppl themselves can't make it work financially, that's where 21 and their R&D team will need to step it up in terms of an even more efficient mining chip.  sounds like they certainly have the capability to do so.  remember what's driving these Silicon Valley ppl.  it's about resting the financial system away from Wall St in determining their own destiny.  there's no dearth of motivation as a result of Sound Money.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 21, 2015, 06:11:07 PM
 #24764

remember what's driving these Silicon Valley ppl.
You keep finding the exact areas where I am most concerned.

I've talked to people who from the Silicon Valley startup scene who've related their stories about the ties between the angel investors who funded their ventures and the CIA, including being subjected to a "aptitude evaluation" which was basically an IQ + (lack of) empathy test.

Remember this article? https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

If you're betting on Silicon Valley to fight the Fed what you're betting on is the defection of crucial sections of the military-industrial complex of a magnitude equivalent to the dissolution of the USSR.

Personally, I do think a USSR-style breakup of the USA is in the cards, but I'm not at all sure about the timing.

Also, in the Soviet case their equivalent of the MIC were the holdouts who were the last to accept that the system could not continue and held a coup to attempt to keep it limping along.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:13:52 PM
 #24765


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 06:48:02 PM
 #24766


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.


in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them.  from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox.  the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house.  or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space.  the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it.  in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized.  the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly.  if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 07:09:58 PM
 #24767

...
Personally, I do think a USSR-style breakup of the USA is in the cards, but I'm not at all sure about the timing.
...

I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one.  That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government.  In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.)  The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc.  Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another.

In terms of timing, the PNAC folks main thesis was that we have about another 100 years where a multi-polar world is practical and the U.S. may as well sit on the top of the stack during this time.  That strikes me as an adequate estimate.

I personally don't see why we cannot do something like 1) make use of our resources and infrastructure to have a decent life for our citizens, 2) rely on our nuclear capability and MAD for defense, 3) and treat other nations with dignity and respect but mainly butt out of their business and let them deal with their own problems without our 'help'.  This seems to be something of a 'third way' between what the Left and Right sees as the way forward.  Frustrating.

Going back to Bitcoin, this is one of the top reasons I am interested in it.  A viable currency solution which anyone can use and which is robust enough to withstand attack could be a very useful tool for those who wish to resist where whoever takes power wishes to herd us.  I'm drifting back to my position of giving up on Bitcoin except as a template for crypto-currencies to figure out what NOT to do.  We've still not managed to 'mainstream' it yet so all hope is not lost, though, as I see it.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 21, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
 #24768

I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one.  That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government.  In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.)  The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc.  Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another.
Of course they're going to try, but they can't pull it off.

They're a generation too late.
Fabrizio89
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 833


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 07:49:34 PM
 #24769

Dollar will weaken as rates won't increase as per FOMC announcement yesterday. Might be a good point for commodities and hopefully Bitcoin.

https://1broker.com/m/r.php?i=2479
Trade stocks, commodities, currencies with bitcoins! Up to 200x Leverage.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:00:17 PM
 #24770

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

My read on it was that the guy on the call, if he works for them at all, is more on the IoT side of their business and not directly involved with the mining (portion of the) chip.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:10:41 PM
 #24771

The loss leading principle is known and works, for phones that could be as simple as a subsidized phone and paying more for minutes. Or the opposite, paying extra for the phone and free calls for two years (loss trailer...). Both are well known marketing strategies. The mining thing - why bother?

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:14:47 PM
 #24772


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.


in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them.  from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox.  the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house.  or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space.  the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it.  in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized.  the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly.  if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.

Yeah, I get all that.

First of all, the use cases are nonsensical, are these the best they can think of?

It presumes a world where there is demand to make digital payments of very tiny amounts that don't exist today, but no demand to make payment of larger everyday amounts. That seems highly unlikely.

The car example doesn't even require money at all. It depends on the cars cooperating anyway - a non-cooperating car can always refuse to yield. So they might as well play a digital form of rock-paper-scissors. No mining or special hardware required.

In general, a device does not need money to communicate or "make decisions".  They already do that today.

The real driverless car use case is the car paying automatically for a paid parking spot. There's no way mining would yield enough for that. The real solution here is payment channels - between your main wallet and your devices, and devices amongst themselves.

There is no special hardware required. This is a world where people are going to have to have digital cash anyway.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:18:38 PM
 #24773



https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/601447310535458816


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: 1246



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:21:50 PM
 #24774

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:26:58 PM
 #24775

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines. I see other, simpler, cheaper  and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:36:40 PM
 #24776

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines.

Well they said exactly that. Go look in their paper.

Quote
I see other, simpler, cheaper and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.

Really how?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:41:57 PM
 #24777


did you listen to the above audio?  it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM.  they stand to profit from other ways.

So I listened to most of it. I don't really care whether OEM's profit or how, I want to know why regular people would have any interest in this at all.

He's changing the original plan as stated on their website. Their website says in big bold words:

"We've developed a chip for embedded bitcoin mining."

But this guy is talking about distributed apps - eg turing complete computation. Those are two different and mutually exclusive things. So I don't know who's correct here.

Let's say the audio guy is correct and they're embedding distributed app computation into all your devices. The guy says "oh you'll get *slightly* higher priority for stuff because your device spent energy on someone else's computation". This still makes no sense. If I want the 1 cent of electricity I burned to get me slightly higher chance of getting a parking space, why can't I just spend money directly?

He still doesn't address why it's beneficial for devices to sell their computing power, breaking even or at a loss, vs just using money that the device's owner earned, for example, from their job.


in the audio they explain that they want to automate those tx's as opposed to having humans make them.  from what i could glean, an app would allow you to preset your preferences to allow, for instance, an Amazon drone to fly over your garage as opposed to your kids sandbox.  the drone center would have this info in their controlling servers which could then pre-compute a flight path over your house.  or the other example they gave was 2 Google driverless cars arriving at an open parking spot at the same time requiring an immediate decision/negotiation to take place determining which car gets the space.  the audio emphasized the "immediacy" of a decision making process enabled by essentially a bidding process somewhere out on some ethereal exchange which would determine who gets what first. humans arguing in a public garage won't cut it.  in order for these types of decision making tx's to take place, "cycles" (or Satoshi's i guess) need to be on the phone ready to be utilized.  the only way to ensure that these are in place ready to go is to have the phone itself mine them continuosly.  if you depend on someone to get a paycheck, go out onto an exchange to buy Satoshi's, pay the exchange fee, and then send them to their phone to enable this whole process, it will never happen.

Yeah, I get all that.

First of all, the use cases are nonsensical, are these the best they can think of?

It presumes a world where there is demand to make digital payments of very tiny amounts that don't exist today, but no demand to make payment of larger everyday amounts. That seems highly unlikely.

not exactly.  they will provide a hardware wallet as well for larger storage amts for larger tx's.
Quote


The car example doesn't even require money at all. It depends on the cars cooperating anyway - a non-cooperating car can always refuse to yield. So they might as well play a digital form of rock-paper-scissors. No mining or special hardware required.

In general, a device does not need money to communicate or "make decisions".  They already do that today.

i agree that the above examples are kinda far out there.  activities we can only imagine.  but they are building off of Mike Hearn's original driverless car visions.  not that that is a measuring stick or anything but just shows ppl have been thinking about how to do this for quite a while now. 
Quote

The real driverless car use case is the car paying automatically for a paid parking spot. There's no way mining would yield enough for that. The real solution here is payment channels - between your main wallet and your devices, and devices amongst themselves.

There is no special hardware required. This is a world where people are going to have to have digital cash anyway.



i agree completely altho we shouldn't discount micropayments completely.  esp for developing nations. 

as for mining, they do have the stated objective of trying to drive more decentralization of mining.  if that requires subsidies or riding on the coat tails of other use cases for these devices, so be it.  i think it's a worthy goal.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 08:49:49 PM
 #24778

totally expected up day to test the underbelly of what has now become resistance.  you have to be worried that it didn't get back over the top today.  in fact, this sets up tomorrow as a big "watch out" day:

Pruden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 457

Sirius Iberia - Nos tomamos el Bitcoin en serio


View Profile
May 21, 2015, 10:09:16 PM
 #24779

totally expected up day to test the underbelly of what has now become resistance.  you have to be worried that it didn't get back over the top today.  in fact, this sets up tomorrow as a big "watch out" day:


Would you care to specify the last 5 occurrences of this non-confirmation? This way we could compare current market breadth (which is quite strong now) and a couple other indicators with the others. I can tell the last one, in 2012, was present almost the whole year and was followed by 2013 being the best year for stocks in quite a while.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 21, 2015, 10:14:20 PM
 #24780

In addition to the public being the victims of scamming in case of the hidden mining, the planned victims could also be future investors. This is also not a very new thing, as we all know.

It's not scamming or "hidden" mining, necessarily. In their white paper-isn thing they describe it as financing the phone via power bills. Let's assume people are actually told the power bill will be higher. Maybe that is seen as a way to offer financing in markets that don't really have the infrastructure for traditional credit, or where the handset maker doesn't want to (or can't for whatever reason) get in bed with the carriers. Instead of needing to collect payments or get a subsidy from the carrier, the phone itself makes the payments via mining. Even if the mining is somewhat unprofitable, as a credit-substitute there might be value there.


Rather stretched idea, but ok it is possible that they think along those lines.

Well they said exactly that. Go look in their paper.

Quote
I see other, simpler, cheaper and more direct ways to have the phone cost on the electric bill, but maybe that is only me.

Really how?

Choose us as power supplier - get a free phone!

Pages: « 1 ... 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 [1239] 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 ... 1560 »
  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!