Bitcoins - anyone else mining? (1 Viewer)

[DrJ]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by DrJ. View it anyway?

much better

Awesome. That makes you and TGunz the only people I'm aware of that have me on ignore. I guess I have a thing for making douches that don't like back their arguments with research and logic a little upset.

 

[DrJ]

Since we like Timothy Lee as a credible source of information though, here's an article from him where he talks about Bitcoin users losing $267K as one of the exchanges shuts down.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/weeks-after-shutdown-bitcoin-exchange-customers-still-wait-for-refunds/

But hey, there is the fact that I can't actually use the currency at Target so there's no way for me to lose any of it there.

 

[DrJ]

Into the bitcoin mines:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/into-the-bitcoin-mines/?_r=0

This guy's shooting to have 15% of the network by February.

 

[[icon]]

Jojo is in a flaming house and everyone else is yelling at him to get out and he's yelling back to shut up, the couch is wicked comfy.

 

[[icon]]

Shark move woulda been to have bitcoins going out for this computing power to actually solve real problems vs just random guessing of numbers lol

 

[DrJ]

http://readwrite.com/2013/11/20/bitcoin-bubble-investment#awesm=~oqJMs5dni7Yi2w

Back in October, I bought $20 worth of Bitcoin for a ReadWrite article. Since then, I’ve watched my meager 0.119 coins soar in value.

When my stash peaked at $71 this week, I determined to sell out. I settled on buying a gift card from Gyft.com, which handles Bitcoin payments through BitPay. Unfortunately, everyone else must have had the same idea, and my Bitcoin was refunded more than 24 hours later. By then, its value had dropped significantly.

This isn’t meant to disparage BitPay. This week, just about every Bitcoin trader or handler has been crippled by volume overload. As the value of a Bitcoin shot up to $600, then $900, then back down to $500, all within a couple of days, the market has been overloaded with eager buyers and panicked sellers alike.

 

[Maelstrom]

It's a disruptive technology because it cuts out a lot of the red tape for something as simple as setting up an ecommerce site and not having to rely on 3rd parties like paypal / Visa / MC etc...to much more advanced capabilities in the bitcoin programming language which haven't even begun to be exploited but could include cutting out exorbitant fees charged by lawyers and bankers. If you don't see it this way then you probably think there are hurdles it won't clear or it won't succeed as a payment platform and data network. A big part about it is removing counterparty risk.

Forbes article with more detail

It is easier than ever to tap into the 3rd parties to accept payments, very little red tape these days. They grant the level of trust that I don't think is there with Bitcoins at this time. And while he refers to it as a network, it is a network that allows value to be exchanged, and as such is a currency. I don't see how that article tells me that it isn't a currency, just because the author calls it a platform or network, doesn't mean that at it's core it isn't a currency.

I get (and even admire) the idea that it is "open-source" and "free" to use, but that also means there isn't a central authority promoting it, making it easier to use or (most importantly) making sure it is safe to use and that merchants and consumers can be assured that if they have value stored as Bitcoins, their value is safe and can be used as a medium of exchange.

I don't get how it eliminates lawyer fees though? Banker fees I can get.

 

[The Ref]

http://readwrite.com/2013/11/20/bitcoin-bubble-investment#awesm=~oqJMs5dni7Yi2w

Back in October, I bought $20 worth of Bitcoin for a ReadWrite article. Since then, I’ve watched my meager 0.119 coins soar in value.

When my stash peaked at $71 this week, I determined to sell out. I settled on buying a gift card from Gyft.com, which handles Bitcoin payments through BitPay. Unfortunately, everyone else must have had the same idea, and my Bitcoin was refunded more than 24 hours later. By then, its value had dropped significantly.

This isn’t meant to disparage BitPay. This week, just about every Bitcoin trader or handler has been crippled by volume overload. As the value of a Bitcoin shot up to $600, then $900, then back down to $500, all within a couple of days, the market has been overloaded with eager buyers and panicked sellers alike.

This has been happening more and more of late. You make a transaction to buy BTC and the price goes up and all of a sudden the trade didn't go though or "unfortunately" your USD funding didn't clear. If the price of BTC went down then there is rarely a problem and you just lost X%. Smae is true on he way out of BTC as posted above.

The current problem isnt BTC i's self it's the "money changers" and they are more shady then Wall Street bankers.

 

[Paulymaggs]

It's a disruptive technology because it cuts out a lot of the red tape for something as simple as setting up an ecommerce site and not having to rely on 3rd parties like paypal / Visa / MC etc...to much more advanced capabilities in the bitcoin programming language which haven't even begun to be exploited but could include cutting out exorbitant fees charged by lawyers and bankers. If you don't see it this way then you probably think there are hurdles it won't clear or it won't succeed as a payment platform and data network. A big part about it is removing counterparty risk.

Forbes article with more detail

It is easier than ever to tap into the 3rd parties to accept payments, very little red tape these days. They grant the level of trust that I don't think is there with Bitcoins at this time. And while he refers to it as a network, it is a network that allows value to be exchanged, and as such is a currency. I don't see how that article tells me that it isn't a currency, just because the author calls it a platform or network, doesn't mean that at it's core it isn't a currency.

I get (and even admire) the idea that it is "open-source" and "free" to use, but that also means there isn't a central authority promoting it, making it easier to use or (most importantly) making sure it is safe to use and that merchants and consumers can be assured that if they have value stored as Bitcoins, their value is safe and can be used as a medium of exchange.

I don't get how it eliminates lawyer fees though? Banker fees I can get.

Yeah, I get the gist of all this, but I have no idea how this will displace Paypal....

Had one of my newer ecomm sites come up the other day and it literally took 5 minutes for a non programmer like me to setup all items to be payable through Paypal. No item categorization at all.

And to the article above about the guy wanting to purchase gift cards at gyft.com; why bother? Should've just used paypal or any of the other online credit card paying alternatives.

 

[Paulymaggs]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

Burden of proof for what?

I'm telling you to stop looking at it as only a currency. In fact you don't have to consider it for anything at all, don't like it? don't use it. It's obvious you don't get what bitcoin offers so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

Isn't that the point of evangelists like you? To make guys like DrJ 'get it'?

 

[Slapdash]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by DrJ. View it anyway?

much better

You guys sure can't take any criticism.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

Burden of proof for what?

I'm telling you to stop looking at it as only a currency. In fact you don't have to consider it for anything at all, don't like it? don't use it. It's obvious you don't get what bitcoin offers so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

Isn't that the point of evangelists like you? To make guys like DrJ 'get it'?

It's pretty clear he has made up his mind, he keeps asking the same dumb questions like why not use 5 or 6 other alt currencies instead of bitcoin. I can only deal with stupid for so long.

 

[identikit]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

Burden of proof for what?

I'm telling you to stop looking at it as only a currency. In fact you don't have to consider it for anything at all, don't like it? don't use it. It's obvious you don't get what bitcoin offers so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

Isn't that the point of evangelists like you? To make guys like DrJ 'get it'?

It's pretty clear he has made up his mind, he keeps asking the same dumb questions like why not use 5 or 6 other alt currencies instead of bitcoin. I can only deal with stupid for so long.

I think you've shown you're pretty good at dealing with it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

It is easier than ever to tap into the 3rd parties to accept payments, very little red tape these days. They grant the level of trust that I don't think is there with Bitcoins at this time. And while he refers to it as a network, it is a network that allows value to be exchanged, and as such is a currency. I don't see how that article tells me that it isn't a currency, just because the author calls it a platform or network, doesn't mean that at it's core it isn't a currency.

I get (and even admire) the idea that it is "open-source" and "free" to use, but that also means there isn't a central authority promoting it, making it easier to use or (most importantly) making sure it is safe to use and that merchants and consumers can be assured that if they have value stored as Bitcoins, their value is safe and can be used as a medium of exchange.

I don't get how it eliminates lawyer fees though? Banker fees I can get.

Yeah, I get the gist of all this, but I have no idea how this will displace Paypal....

Had one of my newer ecomm sites come up the other day and it literally took 5 minutes for a non programmer like me to setup all items to be payable through Paypal. No item categorization at all.

And to the article above about the guy wanting to purchase gift cards at gyft.com; why bother? Should've just used paypal or any of the other online credit card paying alternatives.

The red tape is not the difficulty in integrating pay-pal/Visa/MC it is their exorbitant fees as well as being at the mercy of their policies. It is disruptive because it cuts out the middle-man in all of these transactions and if it continues to take off it will shake up a lot of industries. You had asked how it can be disruptive to banks, isn't it obvious? Lending, raising capital, trading financial instruments - pretty much anything a bank does that again takes an exorbitant cut for themselves (see a pattern?).

As an example from the realm of property, today ownership of real estate is normally transacted in big chunks, like a whole house, because the overhead costs of the transaction are big, and the record-keeping system (deeds in the county courthouse) can't handle microtransactions. Since most people can't afford a whole house all at once, they are forced to get a mortgage from someplace.

With a more advanced record system, you can divide ownership into smaller fractions, and pay for them incrementally, with the balance being rent to the previous owner for the part you haven't bought yet. You can cut out banks and other middle-men from the transaction. When it comes time to move somewhere else, you now get the income flow in the other direction from the next resident.

I did a quick search for videos, couldn't find the one I originally thought of but will post it if I come across it again, but there's this from last month:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJljgM6TSu8

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by identikit. View it anyway?

still works like a charm

 

[Maelstrom]

And jojo - the burden of proof is on the people pushing this as currency. There's no reason for me to accept this as anything more than worthless bits unless trust can be demonstrated. You telling me that my concerns are invalid and offering nothing of substance to demonstrate where I'm mistaken doesn't help to build that trust.

Burden of proof for what?

I'm telling you to stop looking at it as only a currency. In fact you don't have to consider it for anything at all, don't like it? don't use it. It's obvious you don't get what bitcoin offers so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.

Isn't that the point of evangelists like you? To make guys like DrJ 'get it'?

It's pretty clear he has made up his mind, he keeps asking the same dumb questions like why not use 5 or 6 other alt currencies instead of bitcoin. I can only deal with stupid for so long.

The question about alt currencies is a legitimate one. You keep brushing it off because you think it is stupid, but anyone watching this realm can see that Bitcoin may not be the eventual "winner" in the race to create a legitimate currency/network. For whatever reason (some have been listed) people may decide that they don't trust Bitcoin and could flee to an alternative. This possibility has been floated by many following Bitcoin, even those heavily invested, saying that while it is the first to get as popular as it currently is, it is fragile and may not be the eventual "winner".

 

[Maelstrom]

It is easier than ever to tap into the 3rd parties to accept payments, very little red tape these days. They grant the level of trust that I don't think is there with Bitcoins at this time. And while he refers to it as a network, it is a network that allows value to be exchanged, and as such is a currency. I don't see how that article tells me that it isn't a currency, just because the author calls it a platform or network, doesn't mean that at it's core it isn't a currency.

I get (and even admire) the idea that it is "open-source" and "free" to use, but that also means there isn't a central authority promoting it, making it easier to use or (most importantly) making sure it is safe to use and that merchants and consumers can be assured that if they have value stored as Bitcoins, their value is safe and can be used as a medium of exchange.

I don't get how it eliminates lawyer fees though? Banker fees I can get.

Yeah, I get the gist of all this, but I have no idea how this will displace Paypal....

Had one of my newer ecomm sites come up the other day and it literally took 5 minutes for a non programmer like me to setup all items to be payable through Paypal. No item categorization at all.

And to the article above about the guy wanting to purchase gift cards at gyft.com; why bother? Should've just used paypal or any of the other online credit card paying alternatives.

The red tape is not the difficulty in integrating pay-pal/Visa/MC it is their exorbitant fees as well as being at the mercy of their policies. It is disruptive because it cuts out the middle-man in all of these transactions and if it continues to take off it will shake up a lot of industries. You had asked how it can be disruptive to banks, isn't it obvious? Lending, raising capital, trading financial instruments - pretty much anything a bank does that again takes an exorbitant cut for themselves (see a pattern?).

As an example from the realm of property, today ownership of real estate is normally transacted in big chunks, like a whole house, because the overhead costs of the transaction are big, and the record-keeping system (deeds in the county courthouse) can't handle microtransactions. Since most people can't afford a whole house all at once, they are forced to get a mortgage from someplace.

With a more advanced record system, you can divide ownership into smaller fractions, and pay for them incrementally, with the balance being rent to the previous owner for the part you haven't bought yet. You can cut out banks and other middle-men from the transaction. When it comes time to move somewhere else, you now get the income flow in the other direction from the next resident.

I did a quick search for videos, couldn't find the one I originally thought of but will post it if I come across it again, but there's this from last month:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJljgM6TSu8

Actually, I said I get how it affect banks. I asked about lawyers.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The question about alt currencies is a legitimate one. You keep brushing it off because you think it is stupid, but anyone watching this realm can see that Bitcoin may not be the eventual "winner" in the race to create a legitimate currency/network. For whatever reason (some have been listed) people may decide that they don't trust Bitcoin and could flee to an alternative. This possibility has been floated by many following Bitcoin, even those heavily invested, saying that while it is the first to get as popular as it currently is, it is fragile and may not be the eventual "winner".

Today the alt currencies are not on equal footing with Bitcoin - it's not even close. DrJ has repeatedly just stated, well why do I need Bitcoin when I can just use (lists 5-6 other alts)? It is a very simplistic argument that I refuted a number of times, I never said another alt currency couldn't usurp Bitcoin in the future, in order for that to happen though I think a fatal flaw needs to be discovered in Bitcoin and an alt needs to build up the P2P network and merchant list and number of exchanges that Bitcoin has done in the past 3 years. I read there are now over 1000 physical places that accept Bitcoin. These types of relationships are not established and deployed overnight. He continued to ignore my explanations so I gave up repeating myself.

The closest paradigm to bitcoin is email.

Bitcoin, like email, is a protocol. In the realm of computer protocols, the first mover has a massive advantage due to the network effect. We're still using SMTP from 1982 to send and receive emails.

While it's entirely possible that some critical flaw is found in the Bitcoin protocol that engages a switch to some other protocol, it's unlikely.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Actually, I said I get how it affect banks. I asked about lawyers.

Lawyers go hand in hand, look at my real estate example. You often need lawyers to draft up these huge contracts to handle these huge transactions. Since the current system cannot handle/manage microtransactions you are forced to use the current traditional methods/channels. Read up on Colored Coins for more examples.

http://coloredcoins.org/

 

[cstu]

How the Bitcoin 1% manipulate the currency, deceive its user community, and make its future uncertain

Michel Bauwens

30th June 2013

Excerpted from Stanislav Datskovskiy:

” One of the world’s greatest cryptographers, Adi Shamir, published the following analysis:

- “We discovered that almost all these large transactions were the descendants of a single large transaction involving 90,000 Bitcoins which took place on November 8th 2010, and that the subgraph of these transactions contains many strange looking chains and fork-merge structures, in which a large balance is either transferred within a few hours through hundreds of temporary intermediate accounts, or split into many small amounts which are sent to different accounts only in order to be recombined shortly afterwards into essentially the same amount in a new account.” (source: Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph.”

Most bitcoins are, in fact, in the hands of a very few people. Are you surprised? I’m not.

We also learn that, of the approximately 9 million bitcoins which currently exist, less than 2 million actually circulate – that is, change hands with any appreciable frequency:

- “It is remarkable that 97% of all owners had fewer than 10 transactions each, while 75 owners use the network very often and are affiliated with at least 5,000 transactions.”

And it would appear that most of the non-circulating coins are in the hands of a very small number of people – who, one may reasonably suspect, were involved from with building and propagandising Bitcoin from its very beginning. So, who are the lords of Bitcoin?

…

The most damning fact revealed in the paper is not the extreme top-heaviness of the Bitcoin ownership pyramid, but rather the elaborate lengths to which the hoarders went in order to conceal their existence from “rank and file” users. Think of it! Hundreds of thousands of shill accounts, with vast rivers of wealth moving back and forth – for one purpose only: to deceive. None of it was done by accident.

…

Bitcoin turns out to be something other than the fully-decentralized, unkillable network which so many imagined it to be.

People who have invested serious time and wealth in Bitcoin ought to feel angry. Not from any abstract sense of fair play, but from the simple fact that Ron and Shamir’s findings reveal a serious – and quite mathematically-certain – flaw in the sytem. The total number of bitcoins in actual circulation is much smaller than previously believed. If the early adopters were to cash out and place their hoards on the market, the exchange rates (as denominated in anything) would dive through the floor, never to recover. The hoarders, in effect, possess an off switch for Bitcoin.

Whether and under what circumstances they would press the switch, I cannot say. But the Bitcoin kill switch exists.

So, what, if anything, could be done about it? Unfortunately, the one solution which I can think of (other than the idiotic head-in-the-sand solution of not giving a damn, which the Bitcoin user community seems to favour) is a rather unlikely one, and would be quite distasteful – on a gut level – to most users. I am speaking, of course, of proscription. If the Bitcoin community – or a reasonable subset thereof – agreed that the kill switch ought to be neutralized by any means possible, it would be a fairly straightforward matter to declare the hoarders persona non grata and collectively agree to use modified Bitcoin clients (let’s call them Bitcoin-P) which act as if the particular coins currently held by A, C-F, H-K, and M-S were not bitcoins at all. And that such pseudo-coins will never be accepted as genuine in trade for any good or service. In effect, they would be retroactively ####coined for all time.

This act would not require cooperation from every single Bitcoin user, or the imposition of any kind of governing authority. If even a minority of users were to move to Bitcoin-P, operating separate exchanges and the like, said users would be forever immune to the effects of a future market glut resulting from hoarders cashing out. Users of conventional Bitcoin would feel the effects in full, suffering the loss of most if not all of their purchasing power.

But I am under no illusions that Bitcoin-P will ever happen, given the libertarian bent of most Bitcoin users. They will mutter of dekulakization and the like. Fine, lose your hard-earned wealth to a pyramid scheme operator at some unspecified future date. But if you like the idea of decentralized cryptocurrencies without built-in kill switches, think hard about Bitcoin-P. Anyone who wants to can start using Bitcoin-P right now, without having to wait for others to be convinced of its merits. Just compile a list of the Satoshi gang’s bitcoins, and start pretending that they aren’t coins at all. It really is that simple.”

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

How the Bitcoin 1% manipulate the currency, deceive its user community, and make its future uncertain

“When a bitcoin address is used for spending, ALL THE MONEY in that address is always spent by design (see en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions), and it is common practice to send the change to a brand new address, which, by being brand new, cannot be associated with any other addresses through the methods used in this paper. So if everybody kept to the standard practices, 100% of bitcoins would be in addresses that have never been used for spending!

This means that the 78% the article talks about are by no means out of circulation, stored under some mattress or anything like that. The astonishing thing is that 22% of bitcoins are in RE-USED addresses!”

 

[cstu]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

 

[cstu]

Two mining groups are mining over half of all bitcoins.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Back to disruptive technology, I could see Bitcoin severly damaging Western Union's business model.

Hello Bitcoin, goodbye Western Union? The future of remittance could be digital

For African migrants, sending money back home comes at a high cost: they spend an average of 12.4 percent on transfer fees. Bitcoin entrepreneurs are now coming up with clever ways of bringing the cost of remittance down, all the way to zero. A risky endeavor or a smart fix?

I never heard of M-PESA before, sounds intriguing

International M-PESA

But perhaps most promising is the idea of linking Bitcoin to mobile money like M-PESA. M-PESA has over 18 million users in Kenya already and is becoming more and more accepted as a form of currency for everything from buying groceries to paying salaries. Similar services like EcoCash in Zimbabwe are gaining traction across the continent.

By linking Bitcoin to mobile money, Braendgaard believes that using Bitcoin will become a much less daunting prospect for the less tech-savvy. “One of the great things about Kenya is that because of M-PESA, people already understand digital money,” Braendgaard explains. “Here I just say, ‘Bitcoin is like M-PESA, but international’, and people immediately understand it.”

While Kipochi is not directly linked to M-PESA yet, the company has developed the technology to exchange Bitcoin to M-PESA, and is currently under negotiation with Safaricom, the telcom provider that runs M-PESA, to integrate this function in their app.

Kipochi is not the only company that sees M-PESA as useful medium to make Bitcoin remittance more acceptable: CoinFling, a service similar to Kipochi set up by US-based Somalian Roble Musse has already secured such a deal, but is still in private beta. BitPesa, a start-up by the South-Sudanese Nhial Majok who now lives in Australia, is also in the process of working out a deal, and is preparing for launch.

 

[cstu]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

 

[DrJ]

The question about alt currencies is a legitimate one. You keep brushing it off because you think it is stupid, but anyone watching this realm can see that Bitcoin may not be the eventual "winner" in the race to create a legitimate currency/network. For whatever reason (some have been listed) people may decide that they don't trust Bitcoin and could flee to an alternative. This possibility has been floated by many following Bitcoin, even those heavily invested, saying that while it is the first to get as popular as it currently is, it is fragile and may not be the eventual "winner".

Today the alt currencies are not on equal footing with Bitcoin - it's not even close. DrJ has repeatedly just stated, well why do I need Bitcoin when I can just use (lists 5-6 other alts)? It is a very simplistic argument that I refuted a number of times, I never said another alt currency couldn't usurp Bitcoin in the future, in order for that to happen though I think a fatal flaw needs to be discovered in Bitcoin and an alt needs to build up the P2P network and merchant list and number of exchanges that Bitcoin has done in the past 3 years. I read there are now over 1000 physical places that accept Bitcoin. These types of relationships are not established and deployed overnight. He continued to ignore my explanations so I gave up repeating myself.

The closest paradigm to bitcoin is email.

Bitcoin, like email, is a protocol. In the realm of computer protocols, the first mover has a massive advantage due to the network effect. We're still using SMTP from 1982 to send and receive emails.

While it's entirely possible that some critical flaw is found in the Bitcoin protocol that engages a switch to some other protocol, it's unlikely.

Relationships. All you need to do to accept bitcoin is put a little code on your website or use a client. Same for any of the other alt currencies.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

 

[DrJ]

I bought a Subway with Bitcoin and It Was Awesome: https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/48c233e67ddc

I asked how many people had come in this past week to make a purchase with bitcoin. The employees looked with amusement and told us that between them they have had well over one hundred bitcoin enthusiasts stop in. “Some told us they traveled four hours, and they only bought a few cookies.” A wise investment, not only because Subway’s cookies are amazing, but also because next month the bitcoin they spent on food could easily double the value.

The main advantage bitcoin has is media hype. There's nothing that would prevent this same thing from happening with Litecoins other than this Subway realizing there's a bunch of rabid get rich quick types that will drive 4 hours for cookies.

 

[DrJ]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

I'd love to see jojo explain this - in his own words without linking anything - and explain what this has to do with the point.

 

[cstu]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

It's not actually necessary for a digital currency to implement Proof of Work in the same way bitcoin has. The difficulty of mining could be kept extremely easy to everyone could obtain their one coin. The idea that people have to use electricity and computing power to give bitcoins value is honestly ridiculous.

 

[Slapdash]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

I'd love to see jojo explain this - in his own words without linking anything - and explain what this has to do with the point.

That would be a welcome change. While he is at it, he can talk about how coloredcoins will enforce contract law instead of just linking to a website about colored coins.

 

[DrJ]

Thing I find funny about a ton of these too is all of these people seem to have quickly changed their mind about the currency once people started "getting rich". The miner guy that will soon have 15% of the network found out about this in 2010 and thought it was a scam....UNTIL he saw the price rising earlier this year. Then he made his guest room unusable to run a few graphics cards.

The guy that bought the Subway here: "A wise investment, not only because Subway’s cookies are amazing, but also because next month the bitcoin they spent on food could easily double the value."

It's really hilarious that guys like jojo are trying to pretend this is about anything else, while shunning other alt currencies that offer THE EXACT SAME ADVANTAGES. Only real difference is that they don't have all of their wealth concentrated into a few people that have strong vested interest in promoting this for profit.

All that really needs to happen here to destroy this whole thing is that people stop seeing gigantic returns on their investment and start taking a few losses. Once this happens they all pile out. Because investors and the 47 holders of all of it are about the only people that have large amounts of money here. And the price drops some more, and more people pile out. Some people stop mining and sell off their mining equipment, now 1 guy controls over 50% of the network (and complete control over all transactions). And he starts selling these for lower and lower amounts since he's getting more of them and the price is dropping. While the price just continues in a tailspin with nothing to stop it from hitting 0 other than some huge coin holders and rich guys continuing to manipulate it and promote it heavily.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

It's not actually necessary for a digital currency to implement Proof of Work in the same way bitcoin has. The difficulty of mining could be kept extremely easy to everyone could obtain their one coin. The idea that people have to use electricity and computing power to give bitcoins value is honestly ridiculous.

How do you know the dollar bill in your wallet is authentic? Why were so many resources used to ensure it is difficult to counterfeit? The proof of work is utilized in the same way, to prevent easy counterfeiting of the currency. There is no central authority on Bitcoin, the proof of work is used so that nobody has to trust anybody else. That's why proof of work is required. In your example making the problem easy to solve would mean someone could make a chain of hundreds of thousands of blocks with relative ease to profit off of the block rewards.

The risk with Proof-of-work is someone temporarily taking over 51% of the network.

The risk with Proof-of-stake is someone temporarily taking over 51% of the bitcoins minted.

Each has their risks, a lot of you seem convinced that someone could gain control of 51% of bitcoins and destroy the value, so pick your poison.

 

[cstu]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

It's not actually necessary for a digital currency to implement Proof of Work in the same way bitcoin has. The difficulty of mining could be kept extremely easy to everyone could obtain their one coin. The idea that people have to use electricity and computing power to give bitcoins value is honestly ridiculous.

How do you know the dollar bill in your wallet is authentic? Why were so many resources used to ensure it is difficult to counterfeit? The proof of work is utilized in the same way, to prevent easy counterfeiting of the currency. There is no central authority on Bitcoin, the proof of work is used so that nobody has to trust anybody else. That's why proof of work is required. In your example making the problem easy to solve would mean someone could make a chain of hundreds of thousands of blocks to profit off of the block rewards.

Proof of work is a good system but it's unnecessary to increase the difficulty. You may think it matters that computing power is expended in the production of bitcoins but it doesn't.

 

[DrJ]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

It's not actually necessary for a digital currency to implement Proof of Work in the same way bitcoin has. The difficulty of mining could be kept extremely easy to everyone could obtain their one coin. The idea that people have to use electricity and computing power to give bitcoins value is honestly ridiculous.

How do you know the dollar bill in your wallet is authentic? Why were so many resources used to ensure it is difficult to counterfeit? The proof of work is utilized in the same way, to prevent easy counterfeiting of the currency. There is no central authority on Bitcoin, the proof of work is used so that nobody has to trust anybody else. That's why proof of work is required. In your example making the problem easy to solve would mean someone could make a chain of hundreds of thousands of blocks with relative ease to profit off of the block rewards.

It's the first person to solve it within the alloted time period gets a reward. How difficult or easy it is doesn't make any difference in the number of coins awarded, no matter how hard or how easy it is they get released at the same interval. There's no feedback mechanism for any of this just like the quote I referenced earlier pointed out. Basically, jojo has no clue what he's talking about.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

That would be a welcome change. While he is at it, he can talk about how coloredcoins will enforce contract law instead of just linking to a website about colored coins.

Or perhaps instead of just adding snarky comments in this thread you could contribute, but that's probably too much to ask.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

It's not actually necessary for a digital currency to implement Proof of Work in the same way bitcoin has. The difficulty of mining could be kept extremely easy to everyone could obtain their one coin. The idea that people have to use electricity and computing power to give bitcoins value is honestly ridiculous.

How do you know the dollar bill in your wallet is authentic? Why were so many resources used to ensure it is difficult to counterfeit? The proof of work is utilized in the same way, to prevent easy counterfeiting of the currency. There is no central authority on Bitcoin, the proof of work is used so that nobody has to trust anybody else. That's why proof of work is required. In your example making the problem easy to solve would mean someone could make a chain of hundreds of thousands of blocks to profit off of the block rewards.

Proof of work is a good system but it's unnecessary to increase the difficulty. You may think it matters that computing power is expended in the production of bitcoins but it doesn't.

You'll need to explain this more, I have no idea what you are trying to say. If it was easy to manufacture bitcoins what is to prevent someone from counterfeiting them? Advances in hardware make it easier to counterfeit over time.

 

[DrJ]

If you truly want a digital currency that everyone uses, how about giving - not making people with the most powerful computers "mine" for them - one coin to everyone who signs up on their computer (one per IP address) within a limited period?

So make everyone rich? Sorry your posts just sound like outright jealousy.

I don't care about making anyone rich and the point of digital currency is not to make people rich anyway. Bitcoin has been corrupted from its original purpose.

Do you understand what Proof-of-Work is and why it is necessary?

It's not actually necessary for a digital currency to implement Proof of Work in the same way bitcoin has. The difficulty of mining could be kept extremely easy to everyone could obtain their one coin. The idea that people have to use electricity and computing power to give bitcoins value is honestly ridiculous.

How do you know the dollar bill in your wallet is authentic? Why were so many resources used to ensure it is difficult to counterfeit? The proof of work is utilized in the same way, to prevent easy counterfeiting of the currency. There is no central authority on Bitcoin, the proof of work is used so that nobody has to trust anybody else. That's why proof of work is required. In your example making the problem easy to solve would mean someone could make a chain of hundreds of thousands of blocks to profit off of the block rewards.

Proof of work is a good system but it's unnecessary to increase the difficulty. You may think it matters that computing power is expended in the production of bitcoins but it doesn't.

You'll need to explain this more, I have no idea what you are trying to say. If it was easy to manufacture bitcoins what is to prevent someone from counterfeiting them? Advances in hardware make it easier to counterfeit over time.

Another demonstration that jojo has no clue whatsoever how this works from a technical perspective.

 

[Slapdash]

That would be a welcome change. While he is at it, he can talk about how coloredcoins will enforce contract law instead of just linking to a website about colored coins.

Or perhaps instead of just adding snarky comments in this thread you could contribute, but that's probably too much to ask

I'll take that as a no.

 

[DrJ]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

 

[Slapdash]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

I see reversibility as a big piece of security from the consumer's perspective.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

That would be a welcome change. While he is at it, he can talk about how coloredcoins will enforce contract law instead of just linking to a website about colored coins.

Or perhaps instead of just adding snarky comments in this thread you could contribute, but that's probably too much to ask

I'll take that as a no.

When you buy a share of stock what do you get? Currently the certificate would be more like just an entry in their database or accounting system, or a piece of paper or something. With colored coins, the certificate and proof of ownership is stored directly in the block chain and can be freely traded without need for some sort of stock exchange. How does having a digital representation of that piece of paper change your argument? I'm sure there may be details to be worked out, but if that's what you are complaining about then you are just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

I see reversibility as a big piece of security from the consumer's perspective.

One of the main reasons you need reversibility is the inherent flaw in the current credit card system which doesn't exist in bitcoin, fraud. Why do you think it is so easy to steal credit card numbers?

 

[DrJ]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

I see reversibility as a big piece of security from the consumer's perspective.

One of the main reasons you need reversibility is the inherent flaw in the current credit card system which doesn't exist in bitcoin, fraud. Why do you think it is so easy to steal credit card numbers?

Nevermind all of the people that have had hundreds of thousands of bitcoins stolen.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

I see reversibility as a big piece of security from the consumer's perspective.

One of the main reasons you need reversibility is the inherent flaw in the current credit card system which doesn't exist in bitcoin, fraud. Why do you think it is so easy to steal credit card numbers?

Nevermind all of the people that have had hundreds of thousands of bitcoins stolen.

Are they stolen from fraud? Are they stolen from Target due to Target holding onto their financial information?

It's like talking with a wall with you, you can't be this dense.

 

[DrJ]

That would be a welcome change. While he is at it, he can talk about how coloredcoins will enforce contract law instead of just linking to a website about colored coins.

Or perhaps instead of just adding snarky comments in this thread you could contribute, but that's probably too much to ask

I'll take that as a no.

When you buy a share of stock what do you get? Currently the certificate would be more like just an entry in their database or accounting system, or a piece of paper or something. With colored coins, the certificate and proof of ownership is stored directly in the block chain and can be freely traded without need for some sort of stock exchange. How does having a digital representation of that piece of paper change your argument? I'm sure there may be details to be worked out, but if that's what you are complaining about then you are just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

When you buy a bitcoin what do you get? An entry in their chain - which is essentially a distributed database. Why do I keep getting the sinking feeling you know absolutely nothing about this technology and aren't qualified to speak about it. Can you please get a bitcoin enthusiast in here with a clue, because it'd be a lot more interesting of a conversation.

 

[Slapdash]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

I see reversibility as a big piece of security from the consumer's perspective.

One of the main reasons you need reversibility is the inherent flaw in the current credit card system which doesn't exist in bitcoin, fraud. Why do you think it is so easy to steal credit card numbers?

Bitcoin doesn't do anything about the very real possibility that vendors defraud consumers. In fact, it worsens it.

 

[Slapdash]

That would be a welcome change. While he is at it, he can talk about how coloredcoins will enforce contract law instead of just linking to a website about colored coins.

Or perhaps instead of just adding snarky comments in this thread you could contribute, but that's probably too much to ask

I'll take that as a no.

When you buy a share of stock what do you get? Currently the certificate would be more like just an entry in their database or accounting system, or a piece of paper or something. With colored coins, the certificate and proof of ownership is stored directly in the block chain and can be freely traded without need for some sort of stock exchange. How does having a digital representation of that piece of paper change your argument? I'm sure there may be details to be worked out, but if that's what you are complaining about then you are just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

This doesn't at all address the need for having lawyers create and enforce contracts, it just changes the token.

 

[DrJ]

And really another aspect that needs to be considered is why is it "less secure" to use your credit card? Because they want it to be - the amount of theft that happens isn't worth the inconvenience and cost of implementing stronger measures. There have been attempts to make this more secure and the consumer rejected them. They want you to be spending your money.

Your average person isn't interested in security at the sacrifice of convenience. This is the same rule of thumb you use when applying security in a company. Consumers will for the most part reject any attempts at security if it makes their lives more difficult. Another consideration is how much does the security cost? How much risk does this help me mitigate? If it costs more than you gain, well that's clearly a waste of money.

This stuff is entirely inconvenient to hold and spend. So inconvenient that this isn't worth any additional security that it provides. And for the average consumer it's actually less secure because they're responsible for providing many aspects of security themselves. This is also why I don't buy the whole cloud computing security concerns too much for the average person either. You mean to tell me you were doing a better job of securing your stuff than Amazon? Yeah, right... The only argument you can really make is that Amazon is a more target rich environment and no one actually has a reason to try and hack your stupid computer. Until you have a bunch of digital currency you're storing of course.

I see reversibility as a big piece of security from the consumer's perspective.

One of the main reasons you need reversibility is the inherent flaw in the current credit card system which doesn't exist in bitcoin, fraud. Why do you think it is so easy to steal credit card numbers?

Nevermind all of the people that have had hundreds of thousands of bitcoins stolen.

Are they stolen from fraud? Are they stolen from Target due to Target holding onto their financial information?

It's like talking with a wall with you, you can't be this dense.

I thought you had me on ignore.

No, they aren't stolen from Target. Because Target doesn't accept them.