Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 73 results by Xav
Re: Satoshi should give away a good chunk of the 1.000.000 btc he has
If I had one million Bitcoin, I would divide the amount in 3 equal portions. I would convert one third to fiat money, the second third would be used for expanding Bitcoin by means of charities, and the last third would be stored for unknown future purposes, like stabilising its value.
Well, it seems time gets a little bit rough for Bitcoin nowadays. On Reddit I read a cry for a PR-team and on this board some need for "re-gu-la-tion." C'mon. Please. These people don't understand the essential quality of Bitcoin; it's decentralised all the way, which means not only its fundamental P2P/PoW Network but also its authority or more so its absence of authority.
Keep in mind. In code and in nothing but the code we trust. People spreading nonsense about Bitcoin will always get corrected in the long run by this truth, and the truth lies in the code.
Of course some experts can express this truth better than others, and Andreas Antonopolous is doing it for the best; yet he has no authority - he does not need to have, for he is backed up by the code, which is the truth.
Keep in mind. In code and in nothing but the code we trust. People spreading nonsense about Bitcoin will always get corrected in the long run by this truth, and the truth lies in the code.
Of course some experts can express this truth better than others, and Andreas Antonopolous is doing it for the best; yet he has no authority - he does not need to have, for he is backed up by the code, which is the truth.
Re: Contrary to Mt. Gox’s Statement, Bitcoin is not at fault - Gavin Andresen Feb 10
Pretty sure this needs to get addressed sooner than later.
I realize some things take time, but two years to fix a known bug is a wee bit excessive.
-B-
I realize some things take time, but two years to fix a known bug is a wee bit excessive.
-B-
That's what I was thinking. Bug or weakness, this "Foundation" should have realised that billions of money is at stake. Everywhere you go they warn about safety first, be careful for malware, key-logging, etc. Why would anyone trust any Bitcoin-exchange, where wallets are controlled by third-parties anyway, even worse, they are managed by amateurish clowns !? Now, "empty cocks" is throwing mud and hits Bitcoin in their weakest spot.
You make the assumption that all wealth is represented by money, but money is just the medium of exchange, and it can be reused. For example, in a world where there is only $100, a farmer borrows the $100 and has to pay back $105. You are wondering how the farmer pays back the $105 when there is only $100 in the world. Well, it's easy. He sells a harvest and gets $21 for it and pays back $20 plus $1 interest, and then he does that 4 more times.
Ultimately, the ability to pay interest requires a growing economy, but not a growing money supply.
Ultimately, the ability to pay interest requires a growing economy, but not a growing money supply.
If the yearly harvest is $21 then the economic growth is zero (under the assumption that this is the entire economic scope).
True, the speed of light is "absolute" and is called C, and also true is that the total amount of Bitcoins will be 21 million. Now, the sad thing is that the value/price of goods remains relative all the same, simply because these 21 million coins represent the total value of the Bitcoin-economy. This Bitcoin-economy can expand and shrink, and even certain sectors within it can expand or shrink.
Example. Climatical disasters cause a shortage of food, which make a bread more expensive; meaning one can buy less breads from one's income. Even in a Bitcoin stable mono-currency economy the price of one bread would increase. Hope this sort of helps in the way "we" need to think about money.
Example. Climatical disasters cause a shortage of food, which make a bread more expensive; meaning one can buy less breads from one's income. Even in a Bitcoin stable mono-currency economy the price of one bread would increase. Hope this sort of helps in the way "we" need to think about money.
It's not for display.
why would someone set a constant MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN; for display purposes? The display would never go past that so it would be useless to set that constant just to control display.
So in fact, the BTC value is set in code.
why would someone set a constant MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN; for display purposes? The display would never go past that so it would be useless to set that constant just to control display.
So in fact, the BTC value is set in code.
The transaction fee per kB is also set in the code. That doesn't mean that it can't be changed.
COIN is used in various places in the code to make BTC amounts easier for programmers to read. MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN is the same as MAX_MONEY = 2100000000000000. Except in a small amount of code very close to the UI, all Bitcoin values in the code are stored as integer satoshi amounts. (MAX_MONEY is used in transaction verification, but its unit is not BTC.)
In general, changing the code equals changing the rules. Hey, I thought we were done with centralised regulation. Think about it, a miner gets 25 BTC today, which is a fixed portion of the total amount of 21 million BTC (2 100 000 000 000 000 units). Bitcoin is fine as it is; the only minor problem is defining a nice and catchy pricing notation. By definition (design) 1 BTC is 1/21 millionth of the total amount, because of the mining strategy (50, 25, 12.5, and so on).
It will be very confusing/misleading/deceiving if you/they change the already familiar symbol BTC, or its abbreviation BTC, for something else than 1 BTC; i.e. 1/21 millionth of its totality.
Code:
* Example: 0104835800816115944e077fe7c803cfa57f29b36bf87c1d358bb85e
* <><><--------------------------------------------><---->
* | \ | /
* version code vout[1] height
*
* - version = 1
* - code = 4 (vout[1] is not spent, and 0 non-zero bytes of bitvector follow)
* - unspentness bitvector: as 0 non-zero bytes follow, it has length 0
* - vout[1]: 835800816115944e077fe7c803cfa57f29b36bf87c1d35
* * 8358: compact amount representation for 60000000000 (600 BTC)
* * 00: special txout type pay-to-pubkey-hash
* * 816115944e077fe7c803cfa57f29b36bf87c1d35: address uint160
* - height = 203998
*
*
* Example: 0109044086ef97d5790061b01caab50f1b8e9c50a5057eb43c2d9563a4eebbd123008c988f1a4a4de2161e0f50aac7f17e7f9555caa486af3b
* <><><--><--------------------------------------------------><----------------------------------------------><---->
* / \ \ | | /
* version code unspentness vout[4] vout[16] height
*
* - version = 1
* - code = 9 (coinbase, neither vout[0] or vout[1] are unspent,
* 2 (1, +1 because both bit 2 and bit 4 are unset) non-zero bitvector bytes follow)
* - unspentness bitvector: bits 2 (0x04) and 14 (0x4000) are set, so vout[2+2] and vout[14+2] are unspent
* - vout[4]: 86ef97d5790061b01caab50f1b8e9c50a5057eb43c2d9563a4ee
* * 86ef97d579: compact amount representation for 234925952 (2.35 BTC)
* * 00: special txout type pay-to-pubkey-hash
* * 61b01caab50f1b8e9c50a5057eb43c2d9563a4ee: address uint160
* - vout[16]: bbd123008c988f1a4a4de2161e0f50aac7f17e7f9555caa4
* * bbd123: compact amount representation for 110397 (0.001 BTC)
* * 00: special txout type pay-to-pubkey-hash
* * 8c988f1a4a4de2161e0f50aac7f17e7f9555caa4: address uint160
* - height = 120891
* <><><--------------------------------------------><---->
* | \ | /
* version code vout[1] height
*
* - version = 1
* - code = 4 (vout[1] is not spent, and 0 non-zero bytes of bitvector follow)
* - unspentness bitvector: as 0 non-zero bytes follow, it has length 0
* - vout[1]: 835800816115944e077fe7c803cfa57f29b36bf87c1d35
* * 8358: compact amount representation for 60000000000 (600 BTC)
* * 00: special txout type pay-to-pubkey-hash
* * 816115944e077fe7c803cfa57f29b36bf87c1d35: address uint160
* - height = 203998
*
*
* Example: 0109044086ef97d5790061b01caab50f1b8e9c50a5057eb43c2d9563a4eebbd123008c988f1a4a4de2161e0f50aac7f17e7f9555caa486af3b
* <><><--><--------------------------------------------------><----------------------------------------------><---->
* / \ \ | | /
* version code unspentness vout[4] vout[16] height
*
* - version = 1
* - code = 9 (coinbase, neither vout[0] or vout[1] are unspent,
* 2 (1, +1 because both bit 2 and bit 4 are unset) non-zero bitvector bytes follow)
* - unspentness bitvector: bits 2 (0x04) and 14 (0x4000) are set, so vout[2+2] and vout[14+2] are unspent
* - vout[4]: 86ef97d5790061b01caab50f1b8e9c50a5057eb43c2d9563a4ee
* * 86ef97d579: compact amount representation for 234925952 (2.35 BTC)
* * 00: special txout type pay-to-pubkey-hash
* * 61b01caab50f1b8e9c50a5057eb43c2d9563a4ee: address uint160
* - vout[16]: bbd123008c988f1a4a4de2161e0f50aac7f17e7f9555caa4
* * bbd123: compact amount representation for 110397 (0.001 BTC)
* * 00: special txout type pay-to-pubkey-hash
* * 8c988f1a4a4de2161e0f50aac7f17e7f9555caa4: address uint160
* - height = 120891
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/coins.h
Also, miners "earn" a fixed (predefined; 25 at this moment) amount of BTC and fees are charged depended on fractions of 1 BTC and a few other conditions.
In marketing terms those metric prefixes sound very small and evoke the suggestion of dealing with tiny little fractions. Though I'm not much of a salesman, but arriving home and telling your girlfriend or wife, or both, you bought 100 milliBitcoins for $80 would not impress her and make her think of you making a great investment. The story turns 180 degrees when you tell her that you bought 1000 rootBitcoins for $80, doesn't it? Additionally there is no need to name each increase by the factor ten/hundred/thousand; nobody writes 1 gigaDollar or 1 megaDollar or 1 kiloDollar or 1 deciDollar.
Yeah, I agree that those metric prefixes don't really "sound right" when talking about money. I was an electronics tech for twenty years, so I'm accustomed to the metric prefix terminology when discussing millivolts, kilowatts, picofarads, etc., but it just doesn't seem quite right when talking about money. I'm not sold on "rootBitcoins", but I'll go along with whatever term most in the community go with. I don't have an adamant opinion on it, just tossing some ideas around.
As you know, bitcoins are very different than fiat currencies and there is less of a need for metric prefixes when discussing them because bankers just create more of them before they have a chance to appreciate in value ("deflation" they like to call it). If the dollar supply had been controlled over the last hundred years the same way the bitcoin supply will be controlled for the next hundred years, they would have been forced to redefine the currency units (similar to a 10-for-1 stock split) or something along those lines.
I see what you mean. In the old days a Coke costed maybe $0.10 and an average workingman earned about a few hundred bucks a month. If he would spend all his income to Coke he would have a few thousand of them. Nowadays the average workingman has an income of a few thousands and a Coke costs about $2.00. Guess what, he still can buy a few thousand of Cokes each month. Is there a need for a decimal shift in the currency? I think not.
A view in the Bitcoin-future; a bit optimistic though. Today BTC1.00 = $800, so a Coke will cost rBTC25.00 (prefix r for square root of 100 million Satoshi). Twenty years later the same Coke will cost maybe 1000 times less in Bitcoins, because Bitcoin value has rocketed. Still no need for any decimal shifting, because we have the good old tiny little guy called Satoshi, which we can use as a prefix also. This future Coke might be rBTC0.025 = sBTC250.
We only need two prefixes; "root" and "Satoshi". My humble opinion.
All true, but there remains the problem of a symbol that's already assigned to Bitcoin; BTC. The dollar, USD uses $ for each and every amount. It wouldn't make much sense to have two symbols for Bitcoin; the already famous BTC and another one for "Finney." Each price now and in the future is written in BTC. Do you want to change this?
BTW A cent is in fact a dollarcent; for me a cent is a Eurocent.
BTW A cent is in fact a dollarcent; for me a cent is a Eurocent.
I'm sure the metric prefixes and symbology aren't going to change, but perhaps informal or colloquial terms will eventually emerge for the milliBTC and microBTC units. For example, we all agree that a "satoshi" is 0.00000001 BTC, 0.00001 milliBTC, or 0.01 microBTC, without needing a new symbol for it.
In marketing terms those metric prefixes sound very small and evoke the suggestion of dealing with tiny little fractions. Though I'm not much of a salesman, but arriving home and telling your girlfriend or wife, or both, you bought 100 milliBitcoins for $80 would not impress her and make her think of you making a great investment. The story turns 180 degrees when you tell her that you bought 1000 rootBitcoins for $80, doesn't it? Additionally there is no need to name each increase by the factor ten/hundred/thousand; nobody writes 1 gigaDollar or 1 megaDollar or 1 kiloDollar or 1 deciDollar.
In a free world one is allowed to spread the doctrine of "Greed is good" and it is the right of others to pose against this. Nobody argued about regulation or opposed the free market. We all understand that Bitcoin won't abide if the number of participants does not increase; iow greed will bite its own tail at the far end.
The other side of a coin?
The other side of a coin?
Change the decimal now or it's dead. Wake up people !
How about we call one-millionth of a BTC (i.e. a micro-bitcoin) a Finney? One million Finneys equal a Bitcoin.Conveniently, 100 Satoshis equal a Finney, so we can use a convenient two digits after the decimal point, just like dollars and cents. So 0.0015 BTC becomes 1500.00 Finneys.
Forex traders don't like more than two digits after the decimal, so this notation should suit them perfectly.
A Finney is currently worth around a tenth of a cent, so it will remain a useful unit as the price of a bitcoin rises.
The Finney is named in honor of Hal Finney, of course.
Why not Finney ? It sound absurd to rename it "Finney" but it is much better than Bitcoin. As you said, decimals make no sense for normal people.
For most people a "Finney" does not seem to refer to Bitcoin....
Using a new term for the smaller units of currency would have the additional benefit of making it easier to differentiate between bitcoins (the units of currency) and Bitcoin (the payment system/network/service).
For example:
- PayPal is a payment system that allows for payments in dollars and cents.
- Bitcoin is a payment system that allows for payments in finneys and satoshis.
All true, but there remains the problem of a symbol that's already assigned to Bitcoin; BTC. The dollar, USD uses $ for each and every amount. It wouldn't make much sense to have two symbols for Bitcoin; the already famous BTC and another one for "Finney." Each price now and in the future is written in BTC. Do you want to change this?
BTW A cent is in fact a dollarcent; for me a cent is a Eurocent.
Funny people, Belgians. I happen to know, because I'm Dutch. BTW here is a great Belgian professor quoting Henry Ford about money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Tj3bMGkhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Tj3bMGkhg
Change the decimal now or it's dead. Wake up people !
How about we call one-millionth of a BTC (i.e. a micro-bitcoin) a Finney? One million Finneys equal a Bitcoin.Conveniently, 100 Satoshis equal a Finney, so we can use a convenient two digits after the decimal point, just like dollars and cents. So 0.0015 BTC becomes 1500.00 Finneys.
Forex traders don't like more than two digits after the decimal, so this notation should suit them perfectly.
A Finney is currently worth around a tenth of a cent, so it will remain a useful unit as the price of a bitcoin rises.
The Finney is named in honor of Hal Finney, of course.
Why not Finney ? It sound absurd to rename it "Finney" but it is much better than Bitcoin. As you said, decimals make no sense for normal people.
For most people a "Finney" does not seem to refer to Bitcoin. A millibit sounds too cheap. So, let's introduce the "squareroot-Bitcoin" which is 10 000 Satoshi or 1/10 000th of 1 Bitcoin.
Notation:
1 USD = 12.5 rBTC
If I were the Fed's Chairman, I would be a lady, a tiny fragile yet very intelligent woman. I would not be afraid of Bitcoin, yet. I would dress up a project in corporation with NSA and FBI, let them inject some virus in the confiscated 170k BTCs and auction them to the greedy population. A year later I would spread the devastating truth and activate the virus. Bye bye Bitcoin. This costs not even one penny. Just a thought-experiment of course.
"There is enough for everybodys need, but not enough for anybodys greed.
Why would anyone deny what mother nature gave to us; compassion and fairness? One day a scientific analysis will prove that the "Greed is good" doctrine produces nothing more than insatiable hunger, only.
Why would anyone deny what mother nature gave to us; compassion and fairness? One day a scientific analysis will prove that the "Greed is good" doctrine produces nothing more than insatiable hunger, only.
Did I touch a nerve here?
Yes, attacking virtue and degrading it should touch everyones nerves, so I sure hit my spot.
Sorry to hear that, but I was just using the word "just". Grow up, or even better, gain some mental and spiritual fitness.
Quote from: Jungian
Quote
The word "just" as in "no more than". Sure, I've reason to believe you, greedy cookie-monster, reduce mankind to "just" production units. It is completely on your own account that you assign the word "just" to "horrible" and "boring".
This is not a new converstation with statists, they always some up with the same question - and always imply the same thing. That people who think that productivity is something good actually want humans to be robotesque units in a technologial dystopi. If that is not what you meant - you'd be the first.
My thoughts are well expressed by my own words. Your words make them look silly, because you did not understand.
Quote from: Jungian
Quote
Moreover you confuse the meaning of the word "production" with something beautiful as "creation".
Nope. All creation requires productivity.
Wrong. It's your misinterpretation about the essence of cause and effect. Creativity comes before production. Always. It's a mental process. Take for instance Bitcoin, first there is design, and then there will be coding and at the far end there is implementation and ... producing (aka mining).
Quote from: Jungian
Quote
On top of that, you seem very afraid of people getting something for free, or in exchange for sharing insightful thoughts and intentions for a change to create a better world.
No, I'm just highly unimpressed by people who use cheap words that sound great but create horrible situations. Intentions are as useful as dirt, only results matter. Would you go to a doctor that worn the most beatiful dresses and talked of creating a glourious utopia and yet performed surgery with a wooden spoon? Sure, the doctor probably had good intentions, but the patient died.
So far, I do not have the impression your words produce any good nor admiration. You're trying to be a smart alec and sprout a lot of mishmash from your doctrine "greed is good."
Quote from: Jungian
Quote
Let me ask you a very simple question. What's the value of your health? Any idea what a physician produce? Now, eat your cookies, and stay fit.
It's highy valuable. (Good) Physicians produce good health. Cookies taste good and I stay fit thank you very much.
You seem to stretch the meaning of "production" to an extreme extent, which gives reason to describe the contribution by the Dalai Lama as the production of mental and spiritual health, and ... it costs (you) nothing and benefits all.