Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 720 results by Synaptic
You object to "mindless USD printing". Isn't that what bitcoin printing/mining is by design? It's unalterable, there is no human input at all, it is literally mindless. In contrast a great deal of thought goes into how much USD to print each month... You may disagree with the reasoning they use, but it's stupid to call it "mindless".
Just as Americans were supposed to have "a nation of laws and not men," Bitcoin is in fact a currency of laws and not men. Bitcoin is at the whim of no person or group, and while this makes early adoption difficult, strange, and awkward, it is in fact the greatest strength of the system.
And indeed, what would be the point of a central group creating a decentralized money system? If the transaction ledger is centralized, then it possesses none of those benefits so crucial to Bitcoin. If the transaction ledger is decentralized, then why would a central group benefit from creating it, for once created it would be beyond their control.
Look, if you don't like Bitcoin, then don't touch it. But I'd prefer not to touch USD or other fiat currencies. Unfortunately, I'm not given this freedom.
Bitcoin is a fiat currency, if you want to pretend it's a currency.
Forum goes down
Price goes up
Problem?
Price goes up
Problem?
Never a miscommunication.
Excelent point. Really, the only major competitive advantage I see for it now is micropayments on people's YouTube videos and blog posts, but, although it's easy to pay and to collect, people will still have to go through the huge trouble of actually buying the coins for later donation.
A while ago someone had the idea of setting up a Tor style physical goods delivery system, where each person would be able to get paid in Bitcoin as they pass the package along. Think Mirrored Edge game. The central system would let you register your location, possible routes, and delivery fees, and people would be able to set up deliveries with the system automatically calculating the best relay path among the package runners, as well as distribute payment in bitcoin at every confirmed package hand-off. Each person would only know where the package is coming from and whom to take it to, but never the origin or the final destination.
it sounded like an intriguing system, and may have been a nice way to make some extra cash for people who commute long distances to work anyway, but it seems the project just kind of fizzled out before it even got off the ground.
A while ago someone had the idea of setting up a Tor style physical goods delivery system, where each person would be able to get paid in Bitcoin as they pass the package along. Think Mirrored Edge game. The central system would let you register your location, possible routes, and delivery fees, and people would be able to set up deliveries with the system automatically calculating the best relay path among the package runners, as well as distribute payment in bitcoin at every confirmed package hand-off. Each person would only know where the package is coming from and whom to take it to, but never the origin or the final destination.
it sounded like an intriguing system, and may have been a nice way to make some extra cash for people who commute long distances to work anyway, but it seems the project just kind of fizzled out before it even got off the ground.
That is the stupidest fucking idea I have ever heard...
...even more-so since regular shipping can be virtually anonymous, and more secure and less suspicious...
I think the fact that bitcoins started out as worthless throws off every graph's usefulness when you include those
early days.
Try drawing the bottom graph when the price was .50 cents and many more people started getting involved.
It shows a whole different outcome.
early days.
Try drawing the bottom graph when the price was .50 cents and many more people started getting involved.
It shows a whole different outcome.
Don't talk sense here!
If you look at teh codez of the hack, it's a pretty sophisticated attack.
If you were still logged onto Gox or if you hadn't cleared your cookies they likely have compromised your Gox account already.
If you were still logged onto Gox or if you hadn't cleared your cookies they likely have compromised your Gox account already.
Make use of the 'Ignore' feature.
Yes, please do.
Your ignorance is your salvation.
It's funny how everyone interpreted my post negatively.
It was both meant to be a tribute to those who died as a result of the horrific events of 9/11 (Never Forget!) and a comparison to all of the losses of Bitcoiners.
It was apropos because of the proximity to the anniversary.
It was both meant to be a tribute to those who died as a result of the horrific events of 9/11 (Never Forget!) and a comparison to all of the losses of Bitcoiners.
It was apropos because of the proximity to the anniversary.
synaptic, how many times have you been temp. banned?
Three.
To be frank, it is extremely unlikely that someone who does not know core CS (e.g. what "Byzantine Agreement" or "Sybil Attack" mean) would have a correct solution. There is simply no way one could simultaneously have the ability to architect distributed systems and not be able to write it out precisely as code.
My suggestion is you simply describe your scheme so the CS folks here can explain to you why it is broken, and you can learn from it. You should understand that preventing sybil attacks is basically the core open problem in p2p network security research, and no one has any idea how to do it without either a centralized identity issuer, or via extremely wasteful constant resource-tests (as in bitcoin).
So there are 3 options:
1) Your scheme falls into one of two above: central identity issuer, or waste of resources.
2) Your scheme falls outside them and is totally broken.
3) Your scheme falls outside them and is correct. Congratulations, you should write it up, publish it in IPTPS, and collect the best paper award. Perhaps a PhD too.
In particular, we have known since the very beginning[1] that central identity issue or waste of resources are all one can do in particular natural models. You would need an entirely new model.
You might also find this useful, a scheme I described that makes the coin generation set by vote. My scheme falls into (1), as it is still wasting resources: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24929.0
[1] http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=2275703DE2E08EC0E7CEF3321E53506A?doi=10.1.1.17.1073&rep=rep1&type=pdf
EDIT: This is the first time I've written a post in this kind of condescending tone. Mostly it's because of the fact that on the one hand, you recognize 99% of people on this forum are get-rich-quick retards, and on the other, in this thread you are basically behaving in the same way. You have an irrational faith in something that you are not an expert in, have not had vetted by anyone, and refuse to even discuss/describe so that others may attempt to reason with you. You have basically come here and announced that you've struck gold and are going to make it big, but just need someone to code it up (reminds me of the million "I have an idea for an iphone app" crap from MBAs). Anyway, I'd encourage you to look through my posts and recognize I (and the other CS folks here) could probably offer quite a bit of help to you if you're willing to be rational and explain your system in a complete and coherent manner. But until you do that, your posts of "why isn't anyone interested?" are laughable. Noone has anything to say because you've provided absolutely no information to respond to.
Really. Go back and read your "I'm so clever I have a scheme for a perfect crypto-currency;l but I just need a coder" posts earlier in this thread. Then go to the main discussion and read some of the "We are all going to be rich when bitcoins are $1M each because we got in early; but we just need to get more new buyers". Then realize the logic in both cases is identical.
My suggestion is you simply describe your scheme so the CS folks here can explain to you why it is broken, and you can learn from it. You should understand that preventing sybil attacks is basically the core open problem in p2p network security research, and no one has any idea how to do it without either a centralized identity issuer, or via extremely wasteful constant resource-tests (as in bitcoin).
So there are 3 options:
1) Your scheme falls into one of two above: central identity issuer, or waste of resources.
2) Your scheme falls outside them and is totally broken.
3) Your scheme falls outside them and is correct. Congratulations, you should write it up, publish it in IPTPS, and collect the best paper award. Perhaps a PhD too.
In particular, we have known since the very beginning[1] that central identity issue or waste of resources are all one can do in particular natural models. You would need an entirely new model.
You might also find this useful, a scheme I described that makes the coin generation set by vote. My scheme falls into (1), as it is still wasting resources: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24929.0
[1] http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=2275703DE2E08EC0E7CEF3321E53506A?doi=10.1.1.17.1073&rep=rep1&type=pdf
EDIT: This is the first time I've written a post in this kind of condescending tone. Mostly it's because of the fact that on the one hand, you recognize 99% of people on this forum are get-rich-quick retards, and on the other, in this thread you are basically behaving in the same way. You have an irrational faith in something that you are not an expert in, have not had vetted by anyone, and refuse to even discuss/describe so that others may attempt to reason with you. You have basically come here and announced that you've struck gold and are going to make it big, but just need someone to code it up (reminds me of the million "I have an idea for an iphone app" crap from MBAs). Anyway, I'd encourage you to look through my posts and recognize I (and the other CS folks here) could probably offer quite a bit of help to you if you're willing to be rational and explain your system in a complete and coherent manner. But until you do that, your posts of "why isn't anyone interested?" are laughable. Noone has anything to say because you've provided absolutely no information to respond to.
Really. Go back and read your "I'm so clever I have a scheme for a perfect crypto-currency;l but I just need a coder" posts earlier in this thread. Then go to the main discussion and read some of the "We are all going to be rich when bitcoins are $1M each because we got in early; but we just need to get more new buyers". Then realize the logic in both cases is identical.
Ah, this is a great post!
I hand't seen, it got lost under other posts before I noticed it.
I'll respond appropriately when I have some time!
Thanks
Good, I hope I'm obnoxious.
Because you know who's REALLY obnoxious?
Fucking Bitcoin proponents. People who think that poorly thought out alpha level proof-of-concept crypto-currency is the savior of the world financial markets and a viable speculation and investment vehicle.
Those are the REALLY fucking obnoxious people...
I have learned nothing except you are an angry and perhaps jealous individual.
@Synaptic: Two questions...
1) Does your proposal result in a limited number of ?coins being produced?
2) Does your proposal attempt to distribute ?coins at a constant rate, or a variable rate? And if variable, what determines the rate of distribution?
-------------------------
@Minsc: I don't see how you're going to avoid what you're perceiving as a problem.
Mining needs to be based on something. In the case of Bitcoin, it's based on computational power. Whatever resource you propose to replace computational power, is going to be more available to those with more wealth.
Even if mining required answering Captchas, who will be more successful at this: someone trying to mine alone as a hobby, or someone who can hire a roomful of folks to do it for him? Greater wealth always means greater power. There's no way to avoid this in the physical realm.
1) Does your proposal result in a limited number of ?coins being produced?
2) Does your proposal attempt to distribute ?coins at a constant rate, or a variable rate? And if variable, what determines the rate of distribution?
-------------------------
@Minsc: I don't see how you're going to avoid what you're perceiving as a problem.
Mining needs to be based on something. In the case of Bitcoin, it's based on computational power. Whatever resource you propose to replace computational power, is going to be more available to those with more wealth.
Even if mining required answering Captchas, who will be more successful at this: someone trying to mine alone as a hobby, or someone who can hire a roomful of folks to do it for him? Greater wealth always means greater power. There's no way to avoid this in the physical realm.
Excellent questions, and I wish you would have posted them in the alt-crypto thread instead, but here goes:
1) The limits are variable. Yes, there is a limit. No, it's not a hard limit. Maybe, I can elaborate further in the reference thread later.
2) Variable rate. Read the whole thread, I address this. Block generation is tied to economic indices.
Pie in the sky compared to a working solution! Your idea may work but I would not agree to use your solution as free and thinking human being because in reality resources are limited not unlimited.
Your solution will not have the support of good honest people but it would be supported by the dishonest as in the current currency system you can manage your currency buy contracting and expanding the supply through deceptive measures thus making you no different than a central bank. Once again your currency idea may work as the dishonest are more powerful than the honest people today and if you get one of them to support you, then you could get lucky. This is what Facebook and the rest hope to achieve as we go through a currency crisis.
"[unlimited fiat] money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice." George Washington
I want to use the same colorful metaphor towards you but it would bring me down to your level of anger and evil. I need to stop being angry at bankers and people such as yourself and focus on doing something to protect my self and improve the living conditions of those that agree with me or the ideas of Ron Paul.
Davinci
Working hard everyday to protect my self first and hopefully end the global banker occupation.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, you obviously haven't read my conceptual description in the alt-crypto forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41059.0), or you're simply too fucking stupid to understand it.
And your youtube videos were hilarious. Even more-so as my market predictions play out to the letter.
what was it? i'm kinda intrigued now.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6ggkCKpbXE8/Tl5LkrLLVRI/AAAAAAAAaEI/FFlpZ_Pgdws/s1600/rose.jpg
Ok, I hate those stupid multi-level marketing schemes. They all suck and all of that but there is a reason they are around. And yes, I know that Bitcoin is seen as a pyramid scheme so this is probably a bad idea since it reinforces that idea. But...
Bitcoin seems like it would be a natural thing to have a multi-level marketing setup for spreading the word.
You basicall sell starter packages and help a few people get started in Bitcoin, you get paid a bit for your efforts much in the same way that a multi-level marketing scheme works. Then they go on and help people get started and on and on...
I basically see this scenario. You gather 2-3 friends in your living room, you explain to them what Bitcoin is. You tell them that for just $150 they will have the same opportunity as you. You get $50, they get $50 worth of BTC and you pay $50 up your line. You show them how to set up their first wallet. You give them their first Bitcoins once the check clears and help them through the starting stage of getting and spending Bitcoins. Maybe have a business package that costs a bit more so that you can help them get started in collecting Bitcoins at their store.
I realize that the multi level part is cheesy, but this would encourage you to get people into Bitcoin and it would encourage those people to go forth and get more people. You are also providing them with a service and teaching them how to teach others. And in the meantime, the BTC price goes up as well and more people start to use it.
Either way, I think it needs to be easier for people to get started with BTC. It is like a gold coin dealer trying to explain currency to a farmer who has bartered their whole life.
Bitcoin seems like it would be a natural thing to have a multi-level marketing setup for spreading the word.
You basicall sell starter packages and help a few people get started in Bitcoin, you get paid a bit for your efforts much in the same way that a multi-level marketing scheme works. Then they go on and help people get started and on and on...
I basically see this scenario. You gather 2-3 friends in your living room, you explain to them what Bitcoin is. You tell them that for just $150 they will have the same opportunity as you. You get $50, they get $50 worth of BTC and you pay $50 up your line. You show them how to set up their first wallet. You give them their first Bitcoins once the check clears and help them through the starting stage of getting and spending Bitcoins. Maybe have a business package that costs a bit more so that you can help them get started in collecting Bitcoins at their store.
I realize that the multi level part is cheesy, but this would encourage you to get people into Bitcoin and it would encourage those people to go forth and get more people. You are also providing them with a service and teaching them how to teach others. And in the meantime, the BTC price goes up as well and more people start to use it.
Either way, I think it needs to be easier for people to get started with BTC. It is like a gold coin dealer trying to explain currency to a farmer who has bartered their whole life.
YES.
DO THIS.
lol...
You fucking idiot.
It's nice to see you too
Quote
ArtForz himself, the man who supposedly spend a shitload of his own cash, to pursue as close to an ASIC as he could get (the sASIC he mentioned) doesn't believe ASICs are viable...
... and crush your FPGA argument at the same time? I don't agree with ArtForz though, with a _low_ BTC price ASICs make sense. FPGAs already.
Quote
I'm not posting calculations!
Understandable. After all, those calculations would likely disprove your own point
ArtForz is hobbyist.
Vladamir is a businessman.
Which one is using FPGAs?
Just saw this:
Made me laugh out loud
To lighten the mood.
Made me laugh out loud
To lighten the mood.
Lol,
Did you happen to find that gem in the "DEER AGENTS" thread?
Merchants need to be selling for btc BELOW their cash/credit prices, otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
I do this.
I give a 10% discount for those who pay for my services (custom MS Excel tools, utilities, forms, VBA-stuffs, etc.) w/ Bitcoin.
Unfortunately, none of them have heard of Bitcoin.
-Jix
Services are much different than tangible products, and tangible products are where the real market is.