Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 22 results by evgonoba
Hey, all you non-Newbies in the Newbie section...lighten up a bit. 
It appears that you are voluntarily engaging the Newbies to Bitcoin, which is great and very helpful since a person must spend a certain amount of time here, and you are helping them get started.
Just a note from a Newbie who has just spent his 4 hours here:
Be welcoming and encouraging. Almost anyone joining in for the first time is going to be 'critical' in that they are raising questions from their own frame of reference and this is new to them.
Responding with 'do research' is unhelpful and makes your community sound haughty and short on generosity. Again, this IS the Newbie area.
Everyone here can be assumed to be smart, and Bitcoin is a big, impressive movement, so there is no need for defensiveness from the vets when new people don't agree with you. Enjoy spreading the word.
For whatever that's worth.
It appears that you are voluntarily engaging the Newbies to Bitcoin, which is great and very helpful since a person must spend a certain amount of time here, and you are helping them get started.
Just a note from a Newbie who has just spent his 4 hours here:
Be welcoming and encouraging. Almost anyone joining in for the first time is going to be 'critical' in that they are raising questions from their own frame of reference and this is new to them.
Responding with 'do research' is unhelpful and makes your community sound haughty and short on generosity. Again, this IS the Newbie area.
Everyone here can be assumed to be smart, and Bitcoin is a big, impressive movement, so there is no need for defensiveness from the vets when new people don't agree with you. Enjoy spreading the word.
For whatever that's worth.
Does Bitcoin plan to stay "small"?
A currency being big, is different from a bank. Please do research before starting threads, you clearly are one minded from your other post. It is great to have a debate but please bring facts to it.
You may have forgotten that you are in the Newbie section. Starting threads and spending some time here is part of the deal.
I appreciate your taking some time to respond and you are so kind to use the word "please" when you suggest the use of facts.
I will continue to do research and to increase my knowledge of the facts inside Bitcoin. Thus far my experience has been that the defenders of Bitcoin could use a bit more civility.
First, this is the Newbie section. Saying "do research" is a questionable response in a section where Newbies must spend a certain amount of time.
Second, I have not been asking the same questions over and over.
Third, give up on your claim that no theory is involved with Bitcoin. You just made a misstatement...it's OK.
Fourth, thanks for all of your responses.
Second, I have not been asking the same questions over and over.
Third, give up on your claim that no theory is involved with Bitcoin. You just made a misstatement...it's OK.
Fourth, thanks for all of your responses.
To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
So by trustless I mean my node doesn't need to trust what your node is sending to me. I can validate it on own, meaning it is a trustless system.
No bitcoin based on a protocol that is built and working, no theory behind it. If your talking about crypto-functions do some research. The addresses are nothing more than private public key, the bread and butter of internet commerce since about 1996 probably earlier.
This is a money system, that a lot of people are passionate about.
A lot of people are passionate about a lot of things. Nothing gained by that point.
No theory behind it? I'm sure its more serious promoters would wince at such a naive statement. There is theory of some sort behind all cultural innovations and certainly no money system stands a chance without taking money theory seriously.
The trust issues I raise have nothing to do with addresses and private public keys (technological issues) and everything to do with the conception and creation of the money itself, not whether or not nodes do or don't need independent verification.
You called us a religion or money system, I just said I am passionate about it.
I am a very serious promoter, there is no theory behind it.
There is no trust, the miners find a block it is validated, then it that miner gets 25 BTC. That is how the money is created, do research.
I am sorry but you clearly have not done any research on bitcoin, you are asking the same questions over and over and I give you the same answers over and over. You didn't prove anything beside you didn't do research. I will not keep talking unless you ask questions that actually warrant an intelligent answer.
I ASKED if it was a religion. I didn't call you a religion.
A money system with no theory. You do research. You embarrass yourself.
I understand 'how' the money is created. I also understand how Ben Bernanke creates money. Both have certain restrictions, and magic. It wasn't there, now it is.
Bitcoin is better, but it's in need of more examination and its current promoters are awfully defensive.
Bitcoin is a currency. It can be a way to transfer money, it be a way to create money and handout with out a central point doing it.
VISA a credit card, it is based on the fact that you have are promising to payback the money you spend, I don't see how this has anything to do with bitcoin. VISA is it is own central point, it isn't trustless, it trust you to pay back, and you trust it to say you have the money for an item/service.
VISA a credit card, it is based on the fact that you have are promising to payback the money you spend, I don't see how this has anything to do with bitcoin. VISA is it is own central point, it isn't trustless, it trust you to pay back, and you trust it to say you have the money for an item/service.
My reference to VISA was to an earlier post:
[They said the same thing when internet itself got made public for normal people in the late 1980's, i watched it first hand. I was running several BBS's back in that time, and also telnet BBS's. mmmm. Good old memories. And look at internet now. Roll Eyes
They said the same thing about VISA credit/debit card when they created that card in 1958. NOBODY would ever use it, they said; it was madness to trust a piece of plastic with unprotected numbers on it! Look at the growth of creditcards now. (Now I personally still think its madness to trust a creditcard with unprotected numbers like VISA tho, but the world seems to ignore that. Bitcoin will solve that problem once and for all)
They said the same thing with Paypal too. Who would trust a private owned non-bank corp for payments. Look at the growth of paypal now.
Same with bitcoin today. But within few years when enough web-sites has adopted it, rest assured, it's unique way of working will make sure it will be a highly popular way to transfer money. Unless we in future somehow discover a insane bug in the protocol which opens up for a major security-breach, bitcoin is here to stay.]
So, I see that 'trustless' is one of the buzzwords around here. I get the concept, but people really should stop pushing that idea since it undermines credibility when it comes to serious thinking about money. You can't talk about money without talking about trust. Yes, 'trustless' means the technology works, things happen as they say they are going to happen, etc. But, really, the accurate transmission of numbers is not that big a problem to solve.
It's the CREATION of those numbers that concerns serious people.
To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
So by trustless I mean my node doesn't need to trust what your node is sending to me. I can validate it on own, meaning it is a trustless system.
No bitcoin based on a protocol that is built and working, no theory behind it. If your talking about crypto-functions do some research. The addresses are nothing more than private public key, the bread and butter of internet commerce since about 1996 probably earlier.
This is a money system, that a lot of people are passionate about.
A lot of people are passionate about a lot of things. Nothing gained by that point.
No theory behind it? I'm sure its more serious promoters would wince at such a naive statement. There is theory of some sort behind all cultural innovations and certainly no money system stands a chance without taking money theory seriously.
The trust issues I raise have nothing to do with addresses and private public keys (technological issues) and everything to do with the conception and creation of the money itself, not whether or not nodes do or don't need independent verification.
I agree. And so is VISA, but with a very mixed kind of success.
If Bitcoin is just a way to 'transfer' money then it will gain ground and be one of many ways to do so, but not really that interesting of an innovation.
If it is a way to 'create' money, as I believe it is, then it has a more serious task ahead of it as far as winning widespread acceptance.
If Bitcoin is just a way to 'transfer' money then it will gain ground and be one of many ways to do so, but not really that interesting of an innovation.
If it is a way to 'create' money, as I believe it is, then it has a more serious task ahead of it as far as winning widespread acceptance.
To critique a suggestion as insane invites the same type of critique. It could also be called insane to suggest that any system is 'trustless'. Or maybe it is just plain amusing that a system could require no trust.
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
Is Bitcoin not based on a theoretical framework, too?
Does the money system we are to use but not trust based on 'values'?
Is this a religion or a money system?
Call it Bitcoin as far as I'm concerned because everything else can function the same as Bitcoin does now. But to receive the coins you don't just 'mine' some imaginary things, you deposit shares of some REAL thing...shares of US publicly traded companies in the form of ETFs (exchange traded fund).
It would require the function of a custodian (which happens all the time in the securities world) to hold and transfer the shares of the ETF when someone deposits or cashes out their ETF shares.
The idea that Bitcoin requires no such trust in anyone is possibly true in some abstract way, but it certainly does require the trust OF someone. So, that is a draw between the 'mined' coins and those issued when a person deposits shares of an ETF that represent ownership of companies built from the heads and hands of hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years.
It would require the function of a custodian (which happens all the time in the securities world) to hold and transfer the shares of the ETF when someone deposits or cashes out their ETF shares.
The idea that Bitcoin requires no such trust in anyone is possibly true in some abstract way, but it certainly does require the trust OF someone. So, that is a draw between the 'mined' coins and those issued when a person deposits shares of an ETF that represent ownership of companies built from the heads and hands of hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years.
It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.
The great thing is you don't need to trust it, bitcoin isn't about trust. It is about a trustless system, please do more research.
Transactions always require trust. I am referring to its acceptability to a wider audience. I myself am fine with the system.
It was a general point that all transactions require trust....that the item you are buying is what you think it is or, on the other side of the transaction, that you will be paid. You said "you don't need to trust it", so my point was that trust is always an issue when doing business. You seem to feel that there is no doubt or hesitancy out there for Bitcoin to overcome. My point is that the everyday person is skeptical and leery. Anything that new money can do to make it easier to trust is beneficial, even if it seems self evident to others. I think the culture of Bitcoin is a bit too dismissive from what I see and read, and telling people they don't need to trust seems to dismiss widespread and persistent tendencies, which limits its appeal.
We are talking about two different things. Your talking about in general a transaction, which obviously you need trust but that has nothing to do with bitcoin as a currency. That has to do with how you conduct business and which would be found on all currencies. I did a transaction thru amazon with dollars and got scammed. So this is not limited to bitcoin. But with bitcoin you can do easier types of escrow, which I do all the time. I have a reputation built up that I am trustworthy. So I am not seeing your point but I think your dismissing bitcoin a property that all currencies have.
You are wrong that I am dismissing Bitcoin. I accept it as an improvement. I agree that the need for trust in a transaction has nothing to do with Bitcoin. I thought you were asserting that when it comes to Bitcoin trust is not an issue, therefore I said it is always an issue and nothing about Bitcoin removes that issue.
I do not dismiss Bitcoin. I do believe, however, that it could be improved if its creation was based on something other than 'mining' it. Base it on something REAL. Again, I realize that this is even MORE true with our present system of just creating new money 'out of thin air'.
We could issue Bitcoins anytime someone can hold their breath for longer than 3 minutes. That's hard to do, too. (I recognize the value that 'mining' has to the Bitcoin system, but ONLY to the Bitcoin system.)
So, this is why I suspect that non-techie, non-rebel, mainstream type people will not take Bitcoin seriously enough to give it the chance I would like to see it have of displacing our current system.
This is why I suggested in another post that there is real merit in idea of using Capital as Money as presented in the book http://www.amazon.com/Capital-As-Money-ebook/dp/B009AP9ZG6 by a professor who is proposing something new. I think CAM and Bitcoin should 'merge'.
The book Capital as Money should be read and included in any discussion of how to improve Bitcoin.
USE money like Bitcoin does, but CREATE money differently. Don't mine for gold or Bitcoins. Deposit something of value in order to be issued Bitcoins.
Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Capital-As-Money-ebook/dp/B009AP9ZG6
It's free for Kindle right now.
USE money like Bitcoin does, but CREATE money differently. Don't mine for gold or Bitcoins. Deposit something of value in order to be issued Bitcoins.
Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Capital-As-Money-ebook/dp/B009AP9ZG6
It's free for Kindle right now.
Very interesting question. The answer is no. Bitcoin does not need and should not be "backed" by anything. To really understand the issue, however, we need a little history lesson. Gold used to "back" paper money because everyone knew that gold was money and paper money was just a money substitute. Gold was perfectly good money for thousands of years. Paper money was originally (starting in the middle ages for the sake of argument) just a warehouse receipt given to the owner of gold who chose to store his gold in the goldsmith's safe. The goldsmith gave the customer a receipt. That was the first paper money. That receipt was redeemable on demand for the quantity of gold printed on the receipt. In other words - gold backed the paper.
Over the years, people got used to carrying around and trading paper receipts (which were more convenient than gold) and would use them as a substitute for actual gold. But everyone was acutely aware that the paper was not the money. The gold that backed it was the money. In those days (and before that as well), gold's value was overwhelmingly based on its ability to be money. See my post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169517.msg1871316#msg1871316 on inflation and the properties of money. As time went on, people started to forget about gold and started to believe that the paper receipts were money. The problem with paper money is that it is much easier to debase (inflate) than gold. Governments hate gold (as they will hate bitcoin) because then cannot simple "print it" to fund their welfare/warfare states. There are numerous examples in history of governments (in bed with the goldsmiths) creating paper currency (out of thin air) divorced from any real gold and thereby destroying their own economies. (I include all modern electronic versions of official currency when I say "paper money".)
The reason history and common sense says that paper money needs to be backed by gold is that gold is the market winner (over thousands of years) in the contest of what is the best money. Its money properties were almost single-handedly responsible for the advancement of civilization from barbarism to the modern world.
So, when x backs y, x is money and y is the money substitute. As long as people honor the one-to-one relationship between x and y, it's perfectly ok for gold to back paper money or even for bitcoins to back paper money. So, nothing should back gold because gold is (or was) money. Sadly, society has been so far removed from gold for so long, that gold no longer really qualifies as money. And while Bitcoin doesn't quite qualify as money yet, it may someday, and as such it might back something else (even informally). Something as simple as an IOU on the back of an envelope that says IOU 4BTC qualifies as paper money backed by bitcoin.
Final thought on gold. I read a few years ago that if gold were still commonly understood to be money it would be worth over $20,000 per ounce. The reason for this is that the nominal value of all the goods and services in the world divided by the weight of all the gold in the world comes out to about $20K. I could be way off here, but you get the point.
Over the years, people got used to carrying around and trading paper receipts (which were more convenient than gold) and would use them as a substitute for actual gold. But everyone was acutely aware that the paper was not the money. The gold that backed it was the money. In those days (and before that as well), gold's value was overwhelmingly based on its ability to be money. See my post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169517.msg1871316#msg1871316 on inflation and the properties of money. As time went on, people started to forget about gold and started to believe that the paper receipts were money. The problem with paper money is that it is much easier to debase (inflate) than gold. Governments hate gold (as they will hate bitcoin) because then cannot simple "print it" to fund their welfare/warfare states. There are numerous examples in history of governments (in bed with the goldsmiths) creating paper currency (out of thin air) divorced from any real gold and thereby destroying their own economies. (I include all modern electronic versions of official currency when I say "paper money".)
The reason history and common sense says that paper money needs to be backed by gold is that gold is the market winner (over thousands of years) in the contest of what is the best money. Its money properties were almost single-handedly responsible for the advancement of civilization from barbarism to the modern world.
So, when x backs y, x is money and y is the money substitute. As long as people honor the one-to-one relationship between x and y, it's perfectly ok for gold to back paper money or even for bitcoins to back paper money. So, nothing should back gold because gold is (or was) money. Sadly, society has been so far removed from gold for so long, that gold no longer really qualifies as money. And while Bitcoin doesn't quite qualify as money yet, it may someday, and as such it might back something else (even informally). Something as simple as an IOU on the back of an envelope that says IOU 4BTC qualifies as paper money backed by bitcoin.
Final thought on gold. I read a few years ago that if gold were still commonly understood to be money it would be worth over $20,000 per ounce. The reason for this is that the nominal value of all the goods and services in the world divided by the weight of all the gold in the world comes out to about $20K. I could be way off here, but you get the point.
I think you might find the professor's book http://www.amazon.com/Capital-As-Money-ebook/dp/B009AP9ZG6 interesting. The Kindle version is free right now. He proposes the idea that money is better when backed, but that how it's backed is tricky. It SHOULD be backed by the value of the economy. A reasonable approximation of 'the economy' is the largest publicly traded corporations....using something like S&P500 ETF shares. To purchase Bitcoin, for example, you should have to put 1 or 10 shares of SPY on deposit.
I think it has potential.
It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.
The great thing is you don't need to trust it, bitcoin isn't about trust. It is about a trustless system, please do more research.
Transactions always require trust. I am referring to its acceptability to a wider audience. I myself am fine with the system.
It was a general point that all transactions require trust....that the item you are buying is what you think it is or, on the other side of the transaction, that you will be paid. You said "you don't need to trust it", so my point was that trust is always an issue when doing business. You seem to feel that there is no doubt or hesitancy out there for Bitcoin to overcome. My point is that the everyday person is skeptical and leery. Anything that new money can do to make it easier to trust is beneficial, even if it seems self evident to others. I think the culture of Bitcoin is a bit too dismissive from what I see and read, and telling people they don't need to trust seems to dismiss widespread and persistent tendencies, which limits its appeal.
It's not who needs an easy way to send money, it comes down to who will TRUST it enough to send and RECEIVE money....who will take it seriously or not.
The great thing is you don't need to trust it, bitcoin isn't about trust. It is about a trustless system, please do more research.
Transactions always require trust. I am referring to its acceptability to a wider audience. I myself am fine with the system.
The point is not that you need to actually "mine" but that to the average person in the economy, it sounds goofy, therefore doesn't engender trust in it as a 'system'. I know....we don't trust the present system, either, and shouldn't. Therefore, the system to replace it needs to make sense.
Where does the money come from you ask? We mine it from complicated computer transactions...just too goofy for most people.
Where does the money come from you ask? We mine it from complicated computer transactions...just too goofy for most people.
The real problem is that Bitcoins will likely never gain enough acceptance because the whole thing about 'mining' and the like will always only appeal to the rebel and hacker part of society. I'm part of that crowd....but most people aren't.
It's the wrong crowd to really change our money system cause no one takes us seriously enough. And even worse, hackers and gamers don't even really WANT to be taken seriously.
So, it's a limited idea due to it's culture. Sad to say.
It's the wrong crowd to really change our money system cause no one takes us seriously enough. And even worse, hackers and gamers don't even really WANT to be taken seriously.
So, it's a limited idea due to it's culture. Sad to say.
Good point in many ways that dollars are backed by banks. They are backed by banks needing to pay back dollars to someone else. Dollars are also backed up by underwriting procedures that say what is "worth" putting money into in order to get more money BACK from....which is how banks try to tap into value and productivity in the economy. So there IS the IDEA of being backed by the real value that is out there in the economy. Of course, that doesn't cover credit cards...