Newsletter 8 has a different header ... with a different color scheme. Are they changing it?

I was reading this article here: http://insidebitcoins.com/news/bitcoin-foundation-seeks-standardization-of-the-bitcoin-experience/25414

They had this to say about the standardization for existing financial software:


I was wondering if anyone could please help me understand how decimal places are handled in the Bitcoin source code, with regard to the length of the decimal place?

As far as the article goes .. would a solution be to just chop off anything below 100k satoshi, or would the total coin supply just be changed to 22,000,000,000,000.00 Bitcoins?

I tried reading through the wiki, and I can't really find a good description as to how that's handled.

Is there already a thread talking about this? Sorry if there is, please just point me to the link if you have it

That was why I added that part about the bitcoin foundation .. so they actually answer you instead of brush you off and move your post for talking about altcoins.

Most altcoins are based on satoshi codebase, and I don't know your answer.

Hell, I'll do it and send you a message if they talk about it

The serialization is different between satoshi and cryptonote codebases. In short, an infinite number of coins/decimal places can be created using as many variables as you would like .. it's just software.

In long: If the number of variables change to allow more decimal places, serious design considerations must be considered ..

Cryptonote uses just an unsinged 64 bit integer for their coin supply, I'm guessing to save as much space as possible during serialization, while also introducing less error handling techniques for the entire value .. so having more than 184xxxx...xxx indivisible units will require some pretty serious programming work to get past that limit .. so for cryptonote I'd guess you could logically move that decimal point to having .184xxx...xxx units ... so it could have a max of 20 decimal places .. but less than one coin ever to exist. I don't know for sure though ... maybe you could have .00000..0000184xxx..xxx units? Pretty sure that's just how it appears to you anyways .. but asking one of the developers working on cn software would give you a much better answer there

I'm sorry, I'm not nearly as familiar with the satoshi codebase as the cn codebase .. you'll definitely find a better answer to that question in the bitcoin technical section.

Actually, that's a pretty good question. If you don't ask it there I will

Add: I think one of the things on the agenda for the bitcoin foundation recently had something to do with modfiying the decimal places to interface with existing trading software with real markets .. so maybe look around for stuff talking about that as well.

What? Are you aware of how it's implemented?

The variable set to regulate that has a range of 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 bits available when unsigned.

So, if 8 decimal places were taken in XMR, the number of coins would be 184 billion ..

These aren't numbers that are just picked to impress people LOL .. it's a number set to maximize the variable range efficiently

Do you even read the source?

XMR has 12 decimal places

Please note that the underlying tactic relies entirely on separation leading to isolation, confusion of the facts due to the isolation, and finally .. whatever it is the terrorist wants .. well they will get it if you let the confusion lead you there.

These are literally out of the book tactics that are here to tear not only this thread, or another thread, but this entire forum apart .. and are overall pretty common in any kind of threatening movement.

Note that there is advanced hostility amongst coins, and it's been played on the tune that a lot of these people seem to think they're vying for the same markets. How many people here have found themselves hating other people here, because of a coin they like (keep in mind this is separate from the coin itself), for no real good reason? If you tell me zero, and you've been here for more than a year, I know you're lying.

Don't let it get the best of any of you.

Keep asking questions, settle on no answers, follow the money.

Good luck.

ugh.

it's back.

Couldn't it just stay in its own section? I can't unsee the requotes.

Hey if you fellas looking for some excellent spotlight, just go and find a forward thinking low-key developer that's reasonably smart, and then pay him some bounties to find exploits publicly.

That way, this thing will post it in the main section and you'll get and easy 140+ pages of nothing but free publicity.

You didn't mention that the same crypto-anarchists are operating under the implied message that the 'stability and predictability' that is offered by the status quo will be thrown into absolute turmoil over the next decade.

The groundwork that is laid by these people today is very obviously meant to be an insurance policy when and if that happens.

The rational, cold-blooded part of society will have these tools available to them, in such a case.

Even if it doesn't work out, the speculation that has been played out to-date shows that this is one of the fundamental reasons to even have these currencies in the first place.

For the most part, these types of calls get drowned out in the marketing haze though.

That's just fine.

I'd also like to add that, if this were to happen and the insurance policy would need to be called on, hard metals will be moving through some unique times as well. Please consider reading these articles:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-space-mining-asteroids-idUSBRE9AK0JF20131121

http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/future-gold-rush-asteroid-mining/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1634477/nasa-encourages-asteroid-mining-contracts-two-private-companies/

Expect this to be starting up within the next decade as well.

I was wondering which wallet as well.

Both Monero and Supernet logos look extremely similar to some other logo as well as being very similar in both scheme and structure .. I can't remember what it was, but remember some company's logo being posted at around the time we got this one.

Voted: disgraceful


Reason:


This forum is literally a storefront for honest innovation.

Like someone's idea? Is it open source? Got a few thousand bitcoins you don't mind holding in escrow for a few months?

If the answer to these is yes, then host a 3000+ BTC ITO, with your own money, on an exchange with that exact same idea, and just copy the other guys repo who's doing what you're doing for free.

Nothin but good times here .....

Not many coins have dedicated trolling threads

Look at the size of it!

By network, do you mean people?

Because there's entire cities been built without a single person living in them.

You can guess their value

Yeah, one thing that I think that stands out like a sore thumb is the ridiculous advantage that specialized hardware and privatized software get in PoW.

I mean there's kernels out there that push out more than double the hashrate for some GPUs/CPUs that just aren't available to regular users.

People make these things and keep them to themselves, because PoW itself has created a situation where things like that are basically infinitely valuable.

You literally can't pay some people enough money to release some of these things, and they're not wrong for keeping them to themselves.

PoS seems to eliminate this industrial advantage and settle on the idea that everyone will get a reward representative of the amount of value they control.

On balance, I don't know which one is more decentralized - just too much at play - but in the very least I know for sure that the new coins coming into existence with PoS do not favor people with specialized hardware or software, but more of the coins do end up in the hands of people with more money than you, before it hits the market. Where, with PoW, new coins coming into existence will permanently be acquired by an industrial mining process and then sold to the market.

One method requires people with more resources to invest capital for a risky reward, one method requires people with more resources to hold capital. Honestly, viewing it like this seems to make them compliments.

So, which one is more likely to put coins into my hands, assuming I originally started out with .0005% of the currency (total emission * .000005) by whatever means, after a year or two of sitting on it?

Will this be a negligible point after adoption though? Wouldn't you just go to work and earn your currency, rather than mine your currency?

Personally, I tend to heavily favor the risk that becomes associated with investing into PoW mining with all three of hardware, software, and power .. because it pretty much eliminates the need to ever go to an exchange, sort out getting BTC in the first place, and then buying the coin .. which is probably why people went with PoW distributions for PoS coins. PoW always feels so accessible IMO, one of the main reasons I like it.

In the last year, I've watched Proof of Work slide from the most commonly sought after, highest market cap group of coins based on current coins in existence to being represented by less than half of the top fifteen coins.

Taking its place, we have mostly variants of Proof of Stake coins that, by number, seem to be cornering the cryptocurrency scene.

Let's take a look:


Of this list we have the following coins that are not mineable:

NuBits
BanxShares
Fuelcoin
Stellar
Counterparty
NXT
Bitshares
Ripple

And these that are still mineable:

Bitcoin
Litecoin
Dogecoin
Peercoin
Darkcoin
Namecoin
Monero

Of the list that's still mineable, only two do not have publicly available dedicated hardware designed to eliminate GPU and CPU miners, while five have hardware available to follow an industrial mining process.

So, we now have roughly two coins out the top fifteen marketcaps that are capable of being mined by anyone with reasonably standard computer hardware.

Is Proof of Work dead, as a method to distribute a constant supply of new coins in a manner that requires a constant supply of fresh money?

What happened here?

What does the future hold for both PoW and PoS in terms of the number of coins with the top fifteen market caps based on current emission?

Will PoW become further industrialized, with a hardware race?

How long can Proof of Stake variants hold the top spot in the marketcap race?

Heh, was just thinking about this yesterday.

Say you have 10k BTC, and want to make a lot more BTC and don't want to pump a shitcoin becuase it's a little risky/not profitable enough.

So you find people to hold onto 5-10 or your BTC each out of let's say 3k BTC. Fair number, probably don't need it immediately because you've got another 7k to live off of and buy your hookers and coke.

Then you host an ICO, with explicit insctructions to these people that 95% of the 5-10 BTC you handed them be used to buy the ICO, and the other 5% goes to their pocket. I guess you could do this step yourself, but let's be honest, this shits all streamlined now.

Then, you wait for all the BTC to end up in the escrow account, and rake in all the extra profit because people that aren't involved go "OH WOW! 3k BTC in interest!" .. and shit the bed as they slam the buy button.

Then, the ICO ends, and you're left holding the bag for months at more often than not a huge loss while these fucks drag ass and get their money back to them however the escrow was set up.

Then they manage to give the impression of progress, while countless more schemes pop up. You're basically left watching these people move at about the slowest speed possible, while milking you for all you've got.

I think it's time to start demanding the cheese, rather than continue to sit here and let the milking continue..

They're just trying to get you riled up again for the next few weeks.

look for the signs and tell me I'm wrong.

Placing both this thread and obvious retard on ignore, sorryforthat

haha see wat I did there?

Bookmarking this one. We'll all come back in a year and re-evaluate

I'm right there with you.

Problem is, we're dealing with terms that are hardly defined.

Examples: Social Contract, Cryptocurrency inflation, Cryptocurrency emission.

The technology has advanced quite a bit in the last few years, but these types of terms are hardly light subjects.

We've effectively created new morals and guidelines, with technology that's not even a decade.

For the most part, people say that these guidelines need to be followed, and so many of them absolutely refuse to debate them even further.

For example, why is there not a valid voting method in place that can effectively change these terms over a certain amount of time? These aren't commandments given to us as some mandate from heaven, they're bylaws created by ourselves for ourselves. To not even acknowledge that is inane.

We have proof of work, and that's a pretty reasonable vote, but even that is hardly a feudal vote that represents people's wishes. It's okay, and definitely a good way to start with small clusters of people, but look at the damn state it's in now. Entire warehouses filled with graphics cards sitting there breaking little more than passwords. Damn joke in its current state. It needs fixed.

I mean, even my apartment lease contract, insurance contracts, and terms of usage for software change yearly, sometimes even on a monthly basis. It's hardly regulation from a group of elected officials. This is the terms set forth that reflect often reasonable co-existence of user and provider that need to be maintained because time passes and nobody's Jesus and there will be problems that cannot be seen beforehand.

But with cryptocurrencies, we have tried to create a system of only users, with a goal of ultimate decentralization, and then with these five year old commandments from some unknown long since estranged godlike figure we tell people that these rules are undeniable, and any permutation of them is an abhorrent abuse toward the creator that will surely damn us all to hell. See where I'm going here?

We've provided ourselves an effective means of prototyping a cryptocurrency, but no such means of actually maintaining it after implementation. I think this is crazy because all this causes is new coins on top of new coins. I mean ffs if I couldn't change the tires on my car or give it an oil change, or a paint job, or an engine upgrade, change it over to use propane or ethanol then what would I do instead? I'd buy a new car.

We've effectively created a planned obsolescence for cryptocurrencies by not spending just as much time debating inflation, emission, and social contract as we have debating the technicality of the source code or whether we're gonna write a currency in cpp or golang. No fucken wonder we have so many - there's no way to fix them and there's no was to tell if it's broken. We've managed to make one of the most significant revolutions in value exchange, but refuse to admit that the three aforementioned terms are not part of the VIN. The VIN is the genesis block.

Sorry for the car reference, but I'm trying to break this down into easy to understand parts for myself.

We need to have valid maintenance tools. And I'm not talking about build tests, that's more of a NDT style of repair. We need voting mechanisms that can't be gamed, or we need Jesus. We need to have the idea persist that these currencies are for people, and the currency needs to be able to adapt in every way that the people change. The currency needs to serve both the demographic that is currently using the currency, and the demographic that the currency aims to encompass. There won't be one single day in the future where every damn person on the planet wakes up and says: Hey fuck my money I'm gonna use nothing but my favorite cryptocurrency from now until the end of my time here.

No, maybe one or a few hundred a day will have that thought, on a very good day. The ability to scale with a permanently changing and adapting mindset needs to be implemented in these currencies, and PoW hardly cuts it, or any other type of consensus system I've seen here. If it did, then why do we have 400+ bitcoins and not one? Ruling out scams - there are totally legitimate reasons to have a different currency, and it's because both PoW and the 'impending doom' mindset given by anyone promoting sidechains just aren't enough.

Basically, I want a way to open a program that let's me provide one single vote on one single topic, in a way that doesn't compromise my identity to everyone, that can't be gamed such that someone with even twice as many resources as me cannot obtain 2 or even 2^2 more votes than me. I need a mechanism that presents these votes to me in a nondiscriminating way that cannot also be gamed to give me infinite choices to vote on.

We have nothing of this sort, and as such every damn argument is permanently circuitous, and nothing gets done.

I need a program that realizes I'm a damn idiot that might have spent maybe ten seconds thinking about what I'm gonna vote for, and that's okay, so that even though I might not make the right choice, I have the ability to make a choice at a given date within a certain timeframe, so that time can pass and we don't run in circles for years. Then, when it does or doesn't work out, I need it to do it again.

Then, let the markets and everything else decide if it's the right decision. Why is that so hard to provide?

Add: Consider that the last majorly successful refusal of the king's rule and gold started with a declaration of rights and constitution, and the framework necessary to back those claims up for at least 200 years .. until it got a little derailed. Now consider that your source code is the framework, but there's no file in there stating in plain english what you want to follow and what you believe. Then consider that many of these heaps of source code are accompained by a white paper describing technical details and occasionally brushing on plain english. I don't want just a white paper, I want a constitution aimed at uniting people based on a logical location on a network, instead of a geographical location on a planet. Two or three lines detailing emission, inflation, PoW and codebase just don't quite compare to "We the people ...".