|
Etlase2
|
 |
May 14, 2012, 07:50:10 PM |
|
€0.00000005578994750976563
=
$0.00000004184246063232422
Also, average size of a transaction is roughly 500B, so its even smaller again. You can store 2 million transactions for $0.01
Except that there is more than 1 hard drive in the entire network. Say there's 100,000 users with the block chain $0.00000004184246063232422 becomes $0.004184246063232422 that's about twice as much as the current tx fee. And when bitcoin is big enough that there are hundreds of transactions per second, bandwidth caps/speeds become a big issue. We still want new people to download the chain, right? There have to be at least 100k people that have downloaded the block chain already, who knows how many in the future even if lite clients are the norm. I still think microsoiled -3.0's way of handling this is abjectly stupid, but that is realsolid for you. It really doesn't matter though when there are going to be all of 10 people using it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally
controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem
to be holding their own." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sd
|
|
May 14, 2012, 07:52:08 PM |
|
it's not correct, when you have some MC$ in your wallet, you will get some daily interest...
the fee is 0.005 MC$, that means 1.825 MC$ a year, when you have a very small account...
every account has to pay it, after that it is redistributed proportional to the network regarding even how big is every account...
this is a "cleaning" mechanism and spam protection...
this will strengthen the network, you can get some MC$ even if you are not mining, only by hoarding the currency...
correct numbers of holding MC$ to get interest can't be given now and it will fluctuate because it depends on the number of accounts and how much MC$ you have...
What you have just described is a system to funnel money from all users into CoinHunters personal wallet. Why should people get richer just because they are already rich? It might be the way of the corrupt high street banks but it's not the way of the peer2peer crypto-currency system that was designed to replace them. This mechanism doesn't clean anything and isn't spam protection. It solves a problem that never existed and in the process ensures those with many coins get snowballing wealth, as well as losing the semi-anonymous nature of BitCoin. |
|
|
|
|
|
Schwede65
|
|
May 14, 2012, 08:37:18 PM
Last edit: May 14, 2012, 09:03:38 PM by Schwede65 |
|
What you have just described is a system to funnel money from all users into CoinHunters personal wallet. Why should people get richer just because they are already rich? It might be the way of the corrupt high street banks but it's not the way of the peer2peer crypto-currency system that was designed to replace them.
then you are not up-to-date, we are discussing the point on SolidCoinTalk that the biggest account (CPF - CoinProtectionFund) will give his account-fee-income to charity, global organizations with good reputation like UNICEF
This mechanism doesn't clean anything and isn't spam protection. It solves a problem that never existed and in the process ensures those with many coins get snowballing wealth, as well as losing the semi-anonymous nature of BitCoin.
when we just think of someone who doesn't like SC/MC very much, now with SC he can create hundreds of different clients/accounts with a little amount and this blows up the whole network with dispensable transactions and "dead" accounts... yes, he has payed transactions-fees or he has only mined one SC-block, but these accounts will be there "for ever" now he will do the same to MC... hm... after a few days this mini-accounts have gone away and the fine MC$ of the spammer are back redistributed to the network and he does something commendable too: a part of his money goes for charity  for me that looks like fine spam-protection Edit: in the past there have been some problems with spamming - regarding SC - and LTC too (blowing up blockchain)! |
|
|
|
|
k9quaint
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 14, 2012, 09:14:19 PM |
|
€0.00000005578994750976563
=
$0.00000004184246063232422
Also, average size of a transaction is roughly 500B, so its even smaller again. You can store 2 million transactions for $0.01
Except that there is more than 1 hard drive in the entire network. Say there's 100,000 users with the block chain $0.00000004184246063232422 becomes $0.004184246063232422 that's about twice as much as the current tx fee. And when bitcoin is big enough that there are hundreds of transactions per second, bandwidth caps/speeds become a big issue. We still want new people to download the chain, right? There have to be at least 100k people that have downloaded the block chain already, who knows how many in the future even if lite clients are the norm. I still think microsoiled -3.0's way of handling this is abjectly stupid, but that is realsolid for you. It really doesn't matter though when there are going to be all of 10 people using it. You forgot to account for two things. 1) You don't need to store it for 20 years. Since transactions can be pruned, people don't need to store the entire block chain (on clients that support pruning). 2) The cost of storage is falling continuously, but the size of transactions is constant. You are extrapolating a problem based on today's prices for storage. If you added 1,000,000,000 users today there would be issues. Clients would have to implement pruning, but with 1,000,000,000 extra users BTC would be worth a lot more in dollars which means TX fees would be worth a lot more in dollars. There would still be incentive to mirror transactions and find blocks. The problem is not in the block chain as much as the BTC clients current implementation is not optimal. |
Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
|
|
|
k9quaint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 14, 2012, 10:13:38 PM |
|
What you have just described is a system to funnel money from all users into CoinHunters personal wallet. Why should people get richer just because they are already rich? It might be the way of the corrupt high street banks but it's not the way of the peer2peer crypto-currency system that was designed to replace them.
then you are not up-to-date, we are discussing the point on SolidCoinTalk that the biggest account (CPF - CoinProtectionFund) will give his account-fee-income to charity, global organizations with good reputation like UNICEF If you are not going to use the interest, don't collect it. The founders promise to donate it to charity? Like they promised SoiledCoin 1 was better than Bitcoin? And how they promised SoiledCoin 2 is better than Bitcoin? And now they promise SoiledCoin 3 is better than Bitcoin AND going to give to charity? How about they first make a block chain that works, then they can donate money to charity.
This mechanism doesn't clean anything and isn't spam protection. It solves a problem that never existed and in the process ensures those with many coins get snowballing wealth, as well as losing the semi-anonymous nature of BitCoin.
when we just think of someone who doesn't like SC/MC very much, now with SC he can create hundreds of different clients/accounts with a little amount and this blows up the whole network with dispensable transactions and "dead" accounts... yes, he has payed transactions-fees or he has only mined one SC-block, but these accounts will be there "for ever" now he will do the same to MC... hm... after a few days this mini-accounts have gone away and the fine MC$ of the spammer are back redistributed to the network and he does something commendable too: a part of his money goes for charity for me that looks like fine spam-protection Edit: in the past there have been some problems with spamming - regarding SC - and LTC too (blowing up blockchain)! You have no way to differentiate small users from people who are up to mischief. So it just boils down to money being siphoned form everyone who is not a founder and put into the pockets of people who are founders. Classic pyramid scheme outcome. |
Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
|
|
|
vmarchuk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
|
|
May 14, 2012, 10:19:40 PM |
|
You now saying two different things. First you say account get daily interest ? I never heard this before ?!??? Then on top of daily interest, I have daily fee's to keep account ?!??? What is daily interest rate on account vs daily account fee ?!?  ?? Microcash is scam because it not store of value. Best to put money in bank with 0.25% annual interest or under mattress than put in Microcash.
With Microcash daily account fee you lose money every day.
it's not correct, when you have some MC$ in your wallet, you will get daily interest... the daily account fee is MC$ 0.005, that means MC$ 1.825 a year, when you have a very small account... |
|
|
|
|
Syke
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
|
|
May 14, 2012, 11:17:41 PM |
|
it's not correct, when you have some MC$ in your wallet, you will get daily interest...
the daily account fee is MC$ 0.005, that means MC$ 1.825 a year, when you have a very small account...
Someone ran the numbers, and I don't feel like looking them up again, so feel free to correct the actual numbers. Basically, in a month or so (assuming the chain isn't reset...again), anyone with less than a couple hundred dollars worth of MC$ will pay more in daily fees than they get in daily interest. In other words, all the poor people will have their funds transferred to the rich people. |
Buy & Hold
|
|
|
|
sd
|
|
May 14, 2012, 11:31:57 PM |
|
Bad news for your guys.
What if someone like me is willing to drop a couple of thousand BTC into creating a shitload of SC2 spam accounts that will stick around for a few months. Think you can handle the spam that long?
Thanks for the idea.
The transaction spam is almost harmless and the money you would use to setup these accounts will end up in CoinHunters grubby little paws. If you have any spare BTC you can donate it to me at: 1EQnZLQS1BoLtf9KNaJG6vCjdBPAswQnzi |
|
|
|
|
|
Etlase2
|
|
May 15, 2012, 02:04:44 AM |
|
You forgot to account for two things.
1) You don't need to store it for 20 years. Since transactions can be pruned, people don't need to store the entire block chain (on clients that support pruning).
2) The cost of storage is falling continuously, but the size of transactions is constant. You are extrapolating a problem based on today's prices for storage. 1) The issue is about "spam" accounts that have small amounts and stay unused. If the tx out is unspent, it cannot be pruned. Pruning is not the answer to every problem with storage. First you actually need to download the whole block chain first, THEN prune. It is not very efficient. If you trust somebody else's prune, you are trusting them instead of "no one." It saves no bandwidth whatsoever and only eventually saves disk space. 2) See the wiki about 4,000 tps and what kind of storage you'll need. I'm extrapolating; you have a narrow view. BTC would be worth a lot more in dollars which means TX fees would be worth a lot more in dollars. the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round |
|
|
|
k9quaint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 15, 2012, 02:38:56 AM |
|
You forgot to account for two things.
1) You don't need to store it for 20 years. Since transactions can be pruned, people don't need to store the entire block chain (on clients that support pruning).
2) The cost of storage is falling continuously, but the size of transactions is constant. You are extrapolating a problem based on today's prices for storage. 1) The issue is about "spam" accounts that have small amounts and stay unused. If the tx out is unspent, it cannot be pruned. Pruning is not the answer to every problem with storage. First you actually need to download the whole block chain first, THEN prune. It is not very efficient. If you trust somebody else's prune, you are trusting them instead of "no one." It saves no bandwidth whatsoever and only eventually saves disk space. For perfect security, one can download and verify each block from the network of BTC nodes. Sort of like downloading the source code, inspecting it yourself, and then building the executable yourself. Or you could download a signed full blockchain and then verify each block and only download the last few blocks from the network. Not as secure.. Or you could download a signed pruned blockchain that has been signed by N authorities you trust (like Gavin, or the Church of Scientology, or Bill Mahr, or etc). Less secure but that would save bandwidth. BTW, bandwidth is also growing as fast as storage. (Just not in the USA because our infrastructure is made out of feces and michelle bachman's tears). In Sweden they have tested 40Gbit residential links. Not sure when they will be generally available. 2) See the wiki about 4,000 tps and what kind of storage you'll need. I'm extrapolating; you have a narrow view. BTC would be worth a lot more in dollars which means TX fees would be worth a lot more in dollars. the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round You cannot both presume that BTC will suddenly be popular and worthless at the same time. Either BTC is in widespread use before storage becomes incredibly cheap and therefore BTC become more valuable in dollar terms since they are created at a fixed rate and cannot expand to fit demand. Or BTC is not in widespread use before storage becomes cheap and there is less of a problem with needing to store massive transaction volumes. Miners could also just ask for higher transaction fees to support storage as a stop gap solution. Another potential outcome is that BTC could become a currency for the rich. It costs money to participate and issue transactions and mine. Only people able to support the currency can participate in it. No need for a tax designed into the protocol, you are taxed in electrons and hard drives.  |
Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
|
|
|
|
drakahn
|
|
May 15, 2012, 03:02:27 AM |
|
Microcash is scam because it not store of value. Best to put money in bank with 0.25% annual interest or under mattress than put in Microcash.
With Microcash daily account fee you lose money every day.
it's not correct, when you have some MC$ in your wallet, you will get daily interest... the daily account fee is MC$ 0.005, that means MC$ 1.825 a year, when you have a very small account... every account has to pay it, after that it is redistributed proportional to the network regarding even how big every account is... this is a "cleaning" mechanism and spam protection... this will strengthen the network, you can get some MC$ even if you are not mining, only by hoarding the currency... correct numbers of holding MC$ to get interest can't be given now and it will fluctuate because it depends on the number of accounts and how much MC$ you have... its also been said that because of the fee as you have explained it, all the coins will be in one account... the biggest exchange/bank will be collecting the most so there is no reason to not store your coins with them, meaning that one exchange and realsolid are the only two accounts paying fee's? |
14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
|
|
|
|
Etlase2
|
|
May 15, 2012, 03:46:49 AM |
|
You cannot both presume that BTC will suddenly be popular and worthless at the same time. Either BTC is in widespread use before storage becomes incredibly cheap and therefore BTC become more valuable in dollar terms since they are created at a fixed rate and cannot expand to fit demand. Or BTC is not in widespread use before storage becomes cheap and there is less of a problem with needing to store massive transaction volumes. Miners could also just ask for higher transaction fees to support storage as a stop gap solution.
That's not exactly what I meant, but I was being silly so whatevs. I dunno, me personally, I think the best way to have a p2p decentralized protocol is to have one where running a node is very inexpensive. Nodes don't get paid for transaction fees, so raising the tx fee does not help them. |
|
|
|
|
Schwede65
|
|
May 15, 2012, 05:45:38 AM |
|
What you have just described is a system to funnel money from all users into CoinHunters personal wallet. Why should people get richer just because they are already rich? It might be the way of the corrupt high street banks but it's not the way of the peer2peer crypto-currency system that was designed to replace them.
then you are not up-to-date, we are discussing the point on SolidCoinTalk that the biggest account (CPF - CoinProtectionFund) will give his account-fee-income to charity, global organizations with good reputation like UNICEF
This mechanism doesn't clean anything and isn't spam protection. It solves a problem that never existed and in the process ensures those with many coins get snowballing wealth, as well as losing the semi-anonymous nature of BitCoin.
when we just think of someone who doesn't like SC/MC very much, now with SC he can create hundreds of different clients/accounts with a little amount and this blows up the whole network with dispensable transactions and "dead" accounts... yes, he has payed transactions-fees or he has only mined one SC-block, but these accounts will be there "for ever" now he will do the same to MC... hm... after a few days this mini-accounts have gone away and the fine MC$ of the spammer are back redistributed to the network and he does something commendable too: a part of his money goes for charity for me that looks like fine spam-protection Edit: in the past there have been some problems with spamming - regarding SC - and LTC too (blowing up blockchain)! Bad news for your guys. What if someone like me is willing to drop a couple of thousand BTC into creating a shitload of SC2 spam accounts that will stick around for a few months. Think you can handle the spam that long? Thanks for the idea.  ~BCX~ you are welcome |
|
|
|
|
|
Nachtwind
|
|
May 15, 2012, 01:25:48 PM |
|
Microcash is a scam because RealSolid scammed me, again and again, out of my precious time that i spend here waiting to see something happen.
I'd say i spend like 5min per day looking through the forums and part of it of course here.
So.. looking at how much in average my kind of profession earns per hour i calculated that Microcash scams me out of roughly 1.88Eur per day (3544Eur/20 workdays/8 workhours = 22Eur per => 1.88Eur per 5min) - and that without even releasing anything.
How is that with other people here? I guess that the Microcash scam already hit others here as well..
And that is why Microcash is a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
drakahn
|
|
May 16, 2012, 08:50:58 AM |
|
not to mention there was a bit of activity on SC on btc-e leading up to the non release...
|
14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
|
|
|
vmarchuk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
|
|
May 16, 2012, 02:39:38 PM |
|
Can someone make a top ten list on why Microcash is a scam
I thought that your job ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Nachtwind
|
|
May 16, 2012, 05:13:41 PM |
|
I also think that Bitcoinexpress should compile a list of why Microcash is a scam.
Who else, except maybe RealSolid and Coinhunter could explain best why microcash is a scam...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cosbycoin
|
|
May 16, 2012, 06:07:46 PM |
|
Very well written mate! |
|
|
|
|
|
sd
|
|
May 16, 2012, 08:26:10 PM |
|
Just a few ideas on what is wrong with Microcash: Immature untested code. BitCoin has been audited many times, Microcash is going from newly written to production. Closed source. No-one can audit this or pay a security auditing company to do so. Account tax. Robbing the poor to pay the rich. The fact that the taxes don't go to the nodes or the miners but to the wealthy shows this isn't meant to support the network but to make the rich richer. The implications of tax means that people will be forced to use a single address instead of the very many addresses BitCoin gives people. This destroys anonymity. As the tax system contains a fee per account there will be a strong incentive for end users to leave all coins in some kind of central repository. We saw how well that worked with moonco.in, bitcoinica, that polish exchange ( name? ), slush's pool, etc.. The long address scheme in BitCoin is by design. Although the address space looks crazy huge right now there is no reason to reduce it. No-one can know what the future will bring. The 50%+1 protection system claims to be implemented by active nodes voting in a one coin one vote system. This implies that each node will regularly broadcast how many coins it holds, great for tracing wealth to IP addresses to plan robberies. As we have seen it's quite possible to trace BitCoin addresses to IP addresses unless special care is taken. The 50%+1 protection scheme appears to be open to gaming. As wealth will be concentrated in few nodes and these nodes are findable it's possible to DDOS certain voting blocks in order to effectively control who does and doesn't get a vote at any given time. Everything about the CPF is wrong. It's a personal wealth fund and has no need to exist. I'm sure I missed some pretty big stuff but that's my contribution so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
LoupGaroux
|
|
May 18, 2012, 04:58:08 PM |
|
Umm, how about the very name itself is stolen intellectual property? Yup, MicroCash is copyrighted and a registered trademark of another business.
This, of course, is par for the course for the same asswipes that stole the intellectual property to form their first group of poorly implemented clones, then tried to claim they owned the copyright, and then stole a 1992 graphical convention from AOL for all of the clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
