Topic: Bitcoin: The Quants Dream. (Read 5338 times)

neptop is right, "From" address is not applicable for Bitcoin in the ordinary use case. You can achieve it but it's not very convenient. That's why a unique address is generated on the merchant side for each transaction in order to match trades to payments.

I think it would be more like that:

"Pay Button" with an URL like bitcoin://

/

Then a popup comes up, where you can enter a password for your wallet and then you can verify your payment. Amazon knows what you are paying, because the address has been generated for this transaction.

Well, maybe it will be based or HTML, hay if Bitcoins succeeds it could even make its way into HTML. By that the HTTPS certificate also proves that you are really paying Amazon and not a phisher or something.

Of course this doesn't have to be an URI. Thanks to HTML5 we have tons of way to implement this. Think about Microdata! All this is pretty much possible right now. We just have to implement it. Shouldn't be too hard. Will probably do so later.

Also we need more libraries for Bitcoin. So every developer out there can think about and implement nifty things.

On the buying from amazon:
Surly amazon would just have a public address which they declare is theirs. Then when you pay by bitcoins on amazon, after generating a new sending address, you tell amazon from what address you will be sending them payment, they associate that address with your account and send you an email as following:
Dear Customer,
This email confirms that payment will be send from: (sending address) to (amazons receiving address)
product:
date:
order number:
Amazon.

You send them the payment, the transaction can publicly be seen on http://blockexplorer.com and there we go, combined with the email there is proof and you are still anonymous because that sending address would only be used for amazon orders.

Haha, trying to corner people?

In the scope of this discussion, it's not necessary to prove that Federal Reserve is malevolent (some people might think that, but it's not a requisite for the argument against Bitcoin's doom in 3 months). On the other hand, your question assumes the contrary. So you have to prove that it's benevolent for your question to make sense.

So why are people buying gold, if having a limit isn't advantageous? Maybe FR notes and Bitcoins serve different purposes.

You're either a dummy or a troll.  I'm going with the latter. For a 'new poster' you're certainly passionate and (somewhat) informed about Bitcoin. So we already know you came here to argue.  But this is an old discussion.

If it's indeed the former, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Good luck!

Yes I know some points are similar to conventional currencies. You need to fulfil them all to make a quant geek currency such as Bitcoin.

When you say 'them' who exactly do you mean?

'Them' is quite ranging.

Maybe because that would not be advantageous to them?

Disagree. I'm the only one not embarrassing himself.

All trading systems need to be backed up by recourse to law if an individual is wronged in a transaction. Its all very well the entire world being able to see your hash code address but you would have to identify yourself in order to take legal action. The only advantage in anonymous transactions is if your trying to do something illegal.

This 'currency' is a Quant dream. Do any of you know what a Quant is?

Just to inform you all Bitcoin isn't some sort of singularity in history. Hayek theorised about free market banking and currencies years ago and it never caught on - for the same reasons Bitcoin won't work.

A question I would like you all to consider is:

If having a limited amount of currency is so obviously advantageous why don't the Federal Reserve (or any other central bank) stop engaging in open market operations?

All these things are true for all hard currencies. Well, for 1) I don't know think I know what you mean by that.

But 3) and 4) also happens to other currencies. See High Frequency Trading. Some governments think about stopping this, but they can't really do so. The only way to stop it would be some kind of fee (tax), which makes it impossible to do so. Well, Bitcoin has transaction fees. This probably makes it more resistant against something like these things. Just another nice benefit of Bitcoin.

Lol..
Dwolla is US based and the World in not US
On the contrary, bitcoin is worldwide (an advantage)

This.

Because bitcoin has a practically fixed supply, prices can only drop if the economy is growing. so (price) deflation, by definition, implies a growing economy. If no one invests in the bitcoin economy, prices (in bitcoins) will go up. The only problems here are economic fallacies.

How can you say this? Dwolla doesn't compare at all to Bitcoin.

- Dwolla's fee is 100x higher than a typical Bitcoin fee of 0.0005 BTC
- Dwolla is only available to 4% of the world's population (US only), compared to Bitcoin available to 30% of the world population (2 billion people online)
- Dwolla accounts can be seized and frozen, Bitcoin is immune to this
- Dwolla can reverse transfers received by merchants (see TradeHill case), whereas a Bitcoin txfer confirmed by 6 blocks pretty much guarantees it is irreversible
- Dwolla users forfeit all anonymity by having to provide a proof of ID, at least Bitcoin make pseudo-anonymity possible

Dwolla is a possible major competitor.  Fast and very low fee ($0.25).  Based on US dollars so more stable.

Notice how you suggest 3 mutually exclusive solutions. For example: you cannot instantly (in minutes) send gold across the world to an anonymous peer, e-gold is dead, preloaded debit cards are freezable and not decentralized, etc.

Bitcoin satisfies all 3 at once, and conveniently. That's what makes it powerful & valuable. Think of it as digital gold.

oh wow, i just read some of these posts

general.crackdown, you're kinda embarrassing yourself.

Here, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page

If you have any questions let me know 

You link to http://blockexplorer.com/

I think he/she is just unfamiliar with Bitcoin, and is guilty of transcribing arguments from other scenarios.

To bemoan the deflationary nature of Bitcoin due to 'killing investment' is an inappropriate piece of transcription.
A traditional argument against a deflationary currency is that investment will be hindered due to reluctance to spend money which will be worth more in future.

For the argument that investment may stall to make any sense, Bitcoin would have to be so widespread that most of an economy's capital was tied up in it so that little other investment capital was available. (or so insanely deflationary that no investment other than bitcoin was attractive)
If the majority of the capital is still in other currencies, then from an investment perspective Bitcoin can also be considered just another asset like gold or property.

In the case where bitcoin is the dominant currency; the extent to which bitcoin is deflating would indeed act to subtract from the rate of return on investments.
I submit that Bitcoin's deflation rate will rise if the economy is vibrant (requiring more bitcoin transactions) - thus putting the brakes on borrowing and investment, but the Bitcoin deflation rate will lower if the economy slows  - making investments more attractive.

This is of course an experiment that hasn't been run with a highly divisible currency with a fixed issuance rate - but it doesn't seem helpful to have someone simultaneously arguing bitcoin will be 'dead in 3 months' whilst criticizing it for some flaw that they perceive in an alternate universe where Bitcoin has taken over the world.

Sorry but if mtgox goes out the trading just moves to some other exchange, there's plenty. Of course, price will drop if there is a significant loss of trust, but if mtgox just says "we're closing, take your money" then there will be absolutely no problem - tradehill or something else would fill the void instantly. Converting bitcoin to currencies is trivial now without ever logging to mtgox.

I am afraid that the only authority the act of starting a thread gives you is authority to close it, so you have neither ability to set up rules of your own, nor the ability to demand another agent's departure.

Also, why do you refer to yourself in plural ? Do you believe yourself to be some kind of royalty ?