I doubt this is Digibyte.
Is it ok that i share this on Dogecoin to
Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 1044. (Read 3058816 times)
January 30, 2015, 08:08:27 AM
I doubt this is Digibyte.
Is it ok that i share this on Dogecoin to
January 30, 2015, 08:03:57 AM
I doubt this is Digibyte.
January 30, 2015, 08:00:52 AM
January 30, 2015, 07:29:20 AM
That is great. The mere mention of a specific coin by a major media outlet means someone thinks it is viable in the higher levels. They put Digibyte next to Bitcoin in the article. People will read that and wonder if these coins aren't the next generation of viable cryptos. That is where speculation and demand come from.
Good for DGB.
Good for DGB.
January 30, 2015, 07:10:06 AM
It is funny that he does not mention his own coin nowhere but any other coin. I think he lost his hopes on his own coin and does not want people get involved in his coin since he does not want any trouble about it later on. He wants to protect his reputation and fame against his failure on Naut?
In the end good for DGB
It isn't his fail at all some group just pumped and dumped it i don't see anthing new in crypto world there. In the end good for DGB
January 30, 2015, 05:49:05 AM
January 30, 2015, 05:48:50 AM
DigiByte mentioned on CNBC! http://www.cnbc.com/id/102369183
Awesome news! Let´s tweet this and do a giveaway for 1 of the retweeters!
I throw in 50k Digibytes.
Digibyte can you create a tweet?
January 30, 2015, 04:24:51 AM
It is funny that he does not mention his own coin nowhere but any other coin. I think he lost his hopes on his own coin and does not want people get involved in his coin since he does not want any trouble about it later on. He wants to protect his reputation and fame against his failure on Naut?
In the end good for DGB
In the end good for DGB
January 30, 2015, 04:03:57 AM
DigiByte mentioned on CNBC! http://www.c[Suspicious link removed]m/id/102369183
Hear, hear.
Three cheers for Bryan Kelly.
Go over to the Nautiluscoin thread and say that! Lol.
January 30, 2015, 03:49:23 AM
DigiByte mentioned on CNBC! http://www.cnbc.com/id/102369183
Hear, hear.
Three cheers for Bryan Kelly. Excellent article all the way around!
(You know, when people outside the very close knit digital currency world start becoming this knowledgeable, you know things are beginning to go mainstream.)
I'm impressed.
January 30, 2015, 03:16:32 AM
DigiByte mentioned on CNBC! http://www.cnbc.com/id/102369183
January 30, 2015, 12:36:07 AM
AlexMc, your suggestion would go a very long way towards solving the problem I just mentioned above as both parties would be clearly identified and specifically tied to the transaction; moreover, if the option were given to the wallet owner to make the "verified addresses" setting a required default for all transactions, that would also go a long way towards making theft much more difficult (and whoever wants to ignore that additional security level would be free to do so . . . to each his own
).I like the idea for securing the wallet by requiring "verified addresses" for all transactions. This could also be implemented as a security option where transfers/payments to a verified address did not require the wallet passphrase, but all other transactions would still prompt for it.
Perhaps options something like this, where ( ) would be a radio button and [ ] is a check box:
Security Options (Making changes to these options will require your passphrase)
( ) Only allow payments to verified addresses
( ) Allow payments to all addresses
[ ] Require passphrase for payments to verified addresses
Note: Payments to non-verified addresses always require your passphrase if the wallet is encrypted.
A setup like this would be similar to the way my Internet banking works, where a payment to one of the beneficiaries I've added to my banking profile can be made without having to enter the one time PIN that is sent to my mobile phone for other payments to be authorised.
January 30, 2015, 12:04:39 AM
wow
30 satoshi!
30 satoshi!
January 29, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
Looks price is climbing over 30ish soon 
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
i sold out 100M at 8~13 sat,it is a serious mistake, Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
lets just say... I have a couple...
January 29, 2015, 09:02:13 PM
Looks price is climbing over 30ish soon
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
i sold out 100M at 8~13 sat,it is a serious mistake, Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
January 29, 2015, 08:48:28 PM
My god! You have a 100M?
YC
YC
Looks price is climbing over 30ish soon
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
If you believe in a coin, you just buy and forget about how many you have of it.
PS: I have sold a very small fraction @ 30 SAT and that did not feel right
So will keep it for higher. January 29, 2015, 08:13:22 PM
My god! You have a 100M?
YC
YC
Looks price is climbing over 30ish soon
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
January 29, 2015, 07:43:54 PM
Looks price is climbing over 30ish soon
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
Anybody holding more than 100m here? Just curious
January 29, 2015, 06:47:32 PM
I don't see why a lack of transaction reversing in the wallet is a problem. Most reasons for people to reverse a transaction are not because of a flaw in the currency system, it's due to a flaw in human actions.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
People have to think of cryptocurrency as cash, not as a credit system.
Think of how you use cash for transactions.
Is there a way to reverse a cash transaction? No, you have to ask the person for the cash back, and it's up to them to give it to you. If they don't, you are basically out of luck. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. If it was, people would have stopped using cash long ago. (Example: You hand someone $20 instead of $10. That's not the fault of the currency.)
If you want someone to provide a service and you pay them ahead of time in cash, you are trusting them to provide that service. If they don't, then you have to ask them for the cash back, or you sue them. There is no way to automatically reverse this transaction. This is a problem with a person trusting a person to do something. This is not a flaw in the way cash works. (Example: You need your car repaired and they ask for $500 before they fix it, but they never fix it. That's not a fault in the cash, that's your fault for paying ahead of time.)
You can reverse a credit card (CC) transaction, but that isn't cash. If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, you contact the CC company and they investigate and credit your account. They can't reverse that payment, they have to ask the fraudulent party for the money back or sue them. It's up to the CC company to resolve, or they absorb a loss like this. This is not a currency problem, it's a business problem with the CC company paying without verification. (Example: Company X double-charges your credit card. The credit card company pays Company X. That's not a problem with the currency, that's a problem with the CC company not verifying the charge, and the CC company will pay you back out of their own pocket after investigation.)
This is why people use credit cards. Think of credit cards as a 3rd party acting as a type of consumer protection. This should not be the job of the currency.
About the "Sending to the wrong address" problem - The ability to reverse a transaction is not the problem, verifying the correct address is the problem. If you need to transfer money from your bank account to someone else's bank account, do you blindly send to whatever account number they give you, or do you verify with them first that it is the correct number (you read it back to them or something). This is what crypto needs, some sort of encrypted over-the-internet digital handshake ability for verification before a payment is sent/processed.
Should address verification be part of the wallet? I don't think so. I think it should be a different application that runs in concert with the wallet and has access to your wallet's address book. To me, the wallet is simply that - a wallet in your pocket with cash in it that you can quickly use if you don't need to verify addresses.
I agree that paying someone the wrong amount or transferring to the wrong address is due to human error. However, I don't think that where it's possible to reduce or eliminate the human errors, that it shouldn't be done.
Often one payment method is chosen over another because it offers some form of protection or convenience, or complies with a regulation.
I think the important thing is to give someone an option to use a feature, not force it upon them.
I'd love to see a DigiByte wallet that offered the choice to make an ad hoc payment, as it does now, but also an option to setup a "verified address".
This "verified address" could be setup in the wallet using some sort of 2 way communication, possibly with signed messages with reference numbers and a small "dust transaction". This could then verify the identity of both parties, if they wanted or required it to transact. In addition during the setup the parties might specify whether or not they would allow transactions made to be reversed or not, and possibly the window allowed to reverse the transaction.
We could then have an additional "Verified Addresses" filter/tab perhaps with a different coloured checkmark next to each address to indicate if reversible transactions were allowed. Taking this a step further, if the data could be stored in an external database, it would then allow integration with point of sale or online payment systems.
A system like this would allow those who didn't care for it, or require it to ignore it and continue to transact anonymously. It may however get those who currently won't use cryptocurrency for transacting to consider it.
I think those are some excellent thoughts and ideas from both of you.
bogglor, I agree with everything you say except for the possibility of being able to sue since anonymity of transactions (adequate transaction documentation) would make that impossible - with cash you would ask for a receipt of some sort documenting having paid and that would not be possible with current digital currency technology.
AlexMc, your suggestion would go a very long way towards solving the problem I just mentioned above as both parties would be clearly identified and specifically tied to the transaction; moreover, if the option were given to the wallet owner to make the "verified addresses" setting a required default for all transactions, that would also go a long way towards making theft much more difficult (and whoever wants to ignore that additional security level would be free to do so . . . to each his own
). January 29, 2015, 06:35:43 PM
if that plan goes through imagine what would a happen, in the world of cryptocoins
Well, you never know what might happen. The governments and banks can just copy the open source codes and implement their own blockchain like coins and allow it to be exchanged it with FIAT, without publicly allowing exchange on their coin unless you dont create an official account on their banking system? And this way, all the minor coins die right away including some dark style coins... Maybe only BTC, LTC and PPC will survive in that case
Imagine all solid companies create their own coins ? Apple will have a coin named ICoin and company shares will be sold in ICoin or any other FIAT and you can use ICoin to buy Apple products or where ever it can be used.Or maybe the founders of the coin should officially create a company or banking system for its use if that is really worth it. Dont know... ?
If banks only copy the blockchain system, all existing coins may still have a great chance to die since there will be no need for them any more. Time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbB01TkcelM
I've been saying this for months now - much of the time putting up with people ridiculing the idea - that the digital currency that GETS OUT IN FRONT OF THE CURVE will be the winner, and that means LEADING THE WAY IN TRANSPARENCY. Every coin must be clearly assigned to its rightful owner - if not, no-one but the riskiest will participate. And the irony of the matter is that sooner or later the surviving digital currencies (if they survive trying to swim upstream) will be forced to do that anyway! So why not leverage your foresight and get out in front of the curve while you can?
How can we use some of this guidance to continue having DGB lead the pack?
Source: http://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-digital-currency-can-help-the-poor-but-not-1682346647
This definitely highlights some serious potential for DigiByte in the arena. We are working on a strategy for the developing world for DigiByte.Quote
Kate Knibbs
Today 3:40pm
Bill Gates: Digital Currency Can Help the Poor, But Not Bitcoin
Bill Gates has high hopes for digital currency as an important banking tool for the poor. But Bitcoin isn't one of those currencies, he said in a Reddit AMA today. At least not in its current form.
Gates extolled the value of digital currency in his AMA last year as well, explaining that since many poor people in developing countries don't have access to traditional banking, it's not financially worth it for banks to put branches in areas where the amounts stored and transferred are so small, leaving the poor at a huge disadvantage when it comes to exchanging, saving, and accessing money.
Mobile banking costs almost nothing to process, so it actually is worthwhile for banks to provide the service. That means digital money offers an opportunity for mobile banking, and hence the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is so gung-ho about giving people more ways to store their money.
So why not Bitcoin? The billionaire philanthropist and redditor called it "an exciting new technology" in today's AMA, but he doesn't think it's a very good tool to make banking easier in emerging markets because it's so volatile and because it's anonymous:
We don't use bitcoin specifically for two reasons. One is that the poor shouldn't have a currency whose value goes up and down a lot compared to their local currency. Second is that if a mistake is made in who you pay then you need to be able to reverse it so anonymity wouldn't work.
Bitcoin has been touted as a potentially revolutionary banking tool for the poor, and it's likely Gates' remarks will rankle the community. But he did offer an alternative, highlighting the uses of local digital currency like Kenya's M-Pesa over anonymous cryptocurrencies:
The foundation is involved in digital money but unlike Bitcoin it would not be anonymous digital money. In Kenya M-pesa is being used for almost half of all transactions. Digital money has low transaction costs which is great for the poor because they need to do financial transactions with small amounts of money. Over the next 5 years I think digital money will catch on in India and parts of Africa and help the poorest a lot.
Today 3:40pm
Bill Gates: Digital Currency Can Help the Poor, But Not Bitcoin
Bill Gates has high hopes for digital currency as an important banking tool for the poor. But Bitcoin isn't one of those currencies, he said in a Reddit AMA today. At least not in its current form.
Gates extolled the value of digital currency in his AMA last year as well, explaining that since many poor people in developing countries don't have access to traditional banking, it's not financially worth it for banks to put branches in areas where the amounts stored and transferred are so small, leaving the poor at a huge disadvantage when it comes to exchanging, saving, and accessing money.
Mobile banking costs almost nothing to process, so it actually is worthwhile for banks to provide the service. That means digital money offers an opportunity for mobile banking, and hence the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is so gung-ho about giving people more ways to store their money.
So why not Bitcoin? The billionaire philanthropist and redditor called it "an exciting new technology" in today's AMA, but he doesn't think it's a very good tool to make banking easier in emerging markets because it's so volatile and because it's anonymous:
We don't use bitcoin specifically for two reasons. One is that the poor shouldn't have a currency whose value goes up and down a lot compared to their local currency. Second is that if a mistake is made in who you pay then you need to be able to reverse it so anonymity wouldn't work.
Bitcoin has been touted as a potentially revolutionary banking tool for the poor, and it's likely Gates' remarks will rankle the community. But he did offer an alternative, highlighting the uses of local digital currency like Kenya's M-Pesa over anonymous cryptocurrencies:
The foundation is involved in digital money but unlike Bitcoin it would not be anonymous digital money. In Kenya M-pesa is being used for almost half of all transactions. Digital money has low transaction costs which is great for the poor because they need to do financial transactions with small amounts of money. Over the next 5 years I think digital money will catch on in India and parts of Africa and help the poorest a lot.
Source: http://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-digital-currency-can-help-the-poor-but-not-1682346647
Don't take my word for it, hey the likes of Bill Gates says the exact same thing.
Oh, and there's the SMS, low cost, simple transaction thing we were talking about just a few short posts ago . . .
Jared, what about getting in touch with Bill Gates? Or his foundation anyway? I'm sure there's someone there who'd be willing to talk and you'd be expanding your contacts list if nothing else. You might start out with an introduction and then a lead-in to your possible interest in taking DigiByte in the same direction of Kenya's M-Pesa (doesn't mean you're going to do it, just that you're interested in sharing ideas, and I'll bet a ton of DGB that it'll open doors).
HR,
Getting in touch with Bill Gates is a great idea. We are looking to contact many people like him in the very near future. We need to get people like him on board with DigiByte for sure.
The idea of remittance with DigiByte in developing countries is a perfect fit for our emphasis on micro payments and speed.
I know you're on it. It'd be just another possibiltiy to add to the many you've been working on, not the least of which are the connections you made at the 1st Digital Currencies convention for Bankers last summer!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8143117
Jump to: