Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.mediawiki

[1714140650]

1714140650

[1714140650]

1714140650

[molecular]

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.mediawiki

cool! (at least the parts I understood)

"payment code" sounds much less threatening than "stealth address", too.

found a typo:

Alice serializes her payment code as a 65 byte number as a 65 byte number:

I especially like the "possiblity of refund" feature.

[justusranvier]

found a typo:

Thanks.

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/commit/8c4d3429012eb15847c4ae68f212c8b2dcd1b521

[solex]

Apropos of Cypherdoc's poll, I am posting a copy of my recent OP on the subject. This software problem has been my No.1 worry about Bitcoin's future for over 2 years now...

                        

Introducing the 1MBCON Advisory System which gives a quick overview of the risk conditions against timely transaction confirmations into the blockchain.

The debate has been thorough and extensive. Now the status of the risk needs to be tracked: average size of 1000 blocks (7 days) as a percentage of 1MB

End of Q1, 2015

[hdbuck]

The Fate of The Tech Bubble Is In The Hands Of Just One Company

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-24/fate-tech-bubble-hands-just-one-company

[cypherdoc]

[cypherdoc]

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

[cypherdoc]

Garzik:  "Hash power 4.3 Mpetaflops= 77,000 x Tianhe" (world's most powerful supercomputer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oRG0nzSUpSU#t=414

[justusranvier]

Effectively LTC has returned to the price where it initially started trading against BTC back in the summer of 2013.

[cypherdoc]

Effectively LTC has returned to the price where it initially started trading against BTC back in the summer of 2013.

yes, LTC is not effective.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin: A Cheap Call Option On A Revolutionary Tech, With Near-Term Catalysts

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/39542256-byrnehobart/3896726-bitcoin-a-cheap-call-option-on-a-revolutionary-tech-with-near-term-catalysts

[cypherdoc]

A House with Many Doors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9RtZrNPP26w#t=1570

[molecular]

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:



hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

[Dragonkiller]

It just corresponds to the fall in the USD price of BTC.

[cypherdoc]

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:



hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

i think it was Bitpay that explained that Bitcoin is continuing to evolve as a payment network (routine everyday tx's).  i would also add that it probably also means more everyday tx's happening overseas in developing countries.

[smooth]

One theory might be that many of the transactions are tied in some way (perhaps indirectly) to mining. Thus they are denominated in BTC and in economic magnitude, tied to the mining output (which is a fixed rate in BTC). This could include mined coins making their way to and through exchanges to investors.

Another would be that much of the activity is tied to altcoin speculation (essentially a form of gambling) or expicit BTC-denominated gambling. That would tend to rise and fall with overall BTC wealth.

[justusranvier]

hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.

There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.

[smooth]

hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.

There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.

Is there a reason to expect this error to change over time?

[justusranvier]

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.mediawiki

Something I don't think I've explained very well yet is that the payment code proposal provides the missing "from address" that everybody wants, in a way that doesn't compromise privacy.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/From_address