Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1021. (Read 2032266 times)
The point being that nxt is a feature platform before a currency and other coins can take advantage of these features by integrating nxt core into their client.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-made-anonymous-bitcoindark-unprecedented-033200415.html
All of this is being made possible by being built on top of the NXT network. jl777 calls it the "nxt inside" campaign... analogous to "Intel inside"
All of this is being made possible by being built on top of the NXT network. jl777 calls it the "nxt inside" campaign... analogous to "Intel inside"
Lol nxt inside nice try. Intel was a multi billion corporation before anyone knew their slogan... Nxt? umm lets start with btc first
It's just what he's calling the campaign for devs, not mass marketing.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-made-anonymous-bitcoindark-unprecedented-033200415.html
All of this is being made possible by being built on top of the NXT network. jl777 calls it the "nxt inside" campaign... analogous to "Intel inside"
All of this is being made possible by being built on top of the NXT network. jl777 calls it the "nxt inside" campaign... analogous to "Intel inside"
Lol nxt inside nice try. Intel was a multi billion corporation before anyone knew their slogan... Nxt? umm lets start with btc first
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-made-anonymous-bitcoindark-unprecedented-033200415.html
All of this is being made possible by being built on top of the NXT network. jl777 calls it the "nxt inside" campaign... analogous to "Intel inside"
All of this is being made possible by being built on top of the NXT network. jl777 calls it the "nxt inside" campaign... analogous to "Intel inside"
Oxford study?
The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin.
no it won't. the Bitcoin core devs have never introduced a patch or rollback to save any of the multiple exchanges that have been hacked and most likely never will. all updates are thoroughly vetted while gaining a consensus from the community before introduction. what's your point?
Most likely? What Consensus? Vetted by whom? What community? Aren't many people running older qt versions even now?The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin.
http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-true-costs-gold-production/
yes, there is a clear pathway to submitting patches and/or updates that goes thru the core devs. all changes get discussed ad nauseum ahead of time and consensus is formed before they're introduced into new versions of the core protocol. the community is free to chime in and express opinions. the point is that there is a process, not some off the cuff patch to rollback a hack as was just done by the NXT core devs.
i'm not sure what you mean by there being opposed interests btwn hodlers and miners. i'm both and there's no inconsistency btwn both of my activities.
most ppl don't update their versions out of laziness or a reluctance to create unforeseen problems in their current operations that the updates might introduce. it's not b/c they fundamentally disagree with the changes.
I think you're forgetting that nxt is still a relatively new coin and it takes time for those kind of policies to be put it place... bitcoin has a much larger market cap and if nxt keeps growing it will get there to.
Just so we don't forget:
“$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient” by James Felkerson."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/12/bailout-total-29-616-trillion-dollars/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)
“$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient” by James Felkerson."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/12/bailout-total-29-616-trillion-dollars/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)
Oxford study?
The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin.
no it won't. the Bitcoin core devs have never introduced a patch or rollback to save any of the multiple exchanges that have been hacked and most likely never will. all updates are thoroughly vetted while gaining a consensus from the community before introduction. what's your point?
Most likely? What Consensus? Vetted by whom? What community? Aren't many people running older qt versions even now?The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin.
http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-true-costs-gold-production/
yes, there is a clear pathway to submitting patches and/or updates that goes thru the core devs. all changes get discussed ad nauseum ahead of time and consensus is formed before they're introduced into new versions of the core protocol. the community is free to chime in and express opinions. the point is that there is a process, not some off the cuff patch to rollback a hack as was just done by the NXT core devs.
i'm not sure what you mean by there being opposed interests btwn hodlers and miners. i'm both and there's no inconsistency btwn both of my activities.
most ppl don't update their versions out of laziness or a reluctance to create unforeseen problems in their current operations that the updates might introduce. it's not b/c they fundamentally disagree with the changes.
I hope it goes lower...nom nom nom. 
Me too! I'm aiming for a final bottom around 0.006
Oxford study?
The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin.
no it won't. the Bitcoin core devs have never introduced a patch or rollback to save any of the multiple exchanges that have been hacked and most likely never will. all updates are thoroughly vetted while gaining a consensus from the community before introduction. what's your point?
Most likely? What Consensus? Vetted by whom? What community? Aren't many people running older qt versions even now?The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin.
Yikes:
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
yes, it's called the "flush":
Looks like cheap coins to me!
I hope it goes lower...nom nom nom.
The fact is nxt worked as advertised. The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.
I don't disagree. A PoS network comes to some sort of a consensus.
In PoW, that consensus is tethered to physical reality because resources are consumed when voting for a chain; in PoS, that consensus is tethered only to popular opinion. In my mind, PoW cryptos are like gold coins--they take energy and effort to create, and only physical methods can be used to steal them. PoS cryptos are like share certificates--they can be created for zero cost only based on the desires of stake holders, and they can be voided just as easily (voided by social methods as opposed to stolen by physical methods).
Quote
POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW. Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?
They can attack with "nothing at stake" by using coins they once held but have since sold. To attack a PoW system, one must expend resources in this reality. The game theory is completely different.
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows.
the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT
Wasn't it discussed to not have previous halving done? The asics saved it that time. What will save that discussion at next halving? Currently theoretically it would cost only about 2% of bitcoins total valuation to 51% attack it. And it's not going to get better because holders of bitcoin and miners have opposing monetary interests. Mining currently is like a bitcoin annuity since fees are negligible compared to block reward. The hope is when that transition to mining mainly for fees rolls around it will be enough. There are no guarantees it will be. It's interesting that this thread makes fun of gold needing to be dug up, transported and etc... and how bitcoin is so much better but it's ok to have bitcoin mining when it can be considered wastefull. Maybe in the future instead that big gold rock picture we'll be laughing at big bitcoin mining operations the same way.
gimme a break. ppl die gold mining, let alone get seriously physically abused.
what about the Oxford PhD's study do you not agree with?
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows.
the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT
Wasn't it discussed to not have previous halving done? The asics saved it that time. What will save that discussion at next halving? Currently theoretically it would cost only about 2% of bitcoins total valuation to 51% attack it. And it's not going to get better because holders of bitcoin and miners have opposing monetary interests. Mining currently is like a bitcoin annuity since fees are negligible compared to block reward. The hope is when that transition to mining mainly for fees rolls around it will be enough. There are no guarantees it will be. It's interesting that this thread makes fun of gold needing to be dug up, transported and etc... and how bitcoin is so much better but it's ok to have bitcoin mining when it can be considered wastefull. Maybe in the future instead that big gold rock picture we'll be laughing at big bitcoin mining operations the same way.
no it won't. the Bitcoin core devs have never introduced a patch or rollback to save any of the multiple exchanges that have been hacked and most likely never will. all updates are thoroughly vetted while gaining a consensus from the community before introduction. what's your point?
Yikes:
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
yes, it's called the "flush":
Yikes:
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
At least it will be good to watch what happens and learn lessons about ASIC endgame. That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
Yikes:
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows.
the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT
Wasn't it discussed to not have previous halving done? The asics saved it that time. What will save that discussion at next halving? Currently theoretically it would cost only about 2% of bitcoins total valuation to 51% attack it. And it's not going to get better because holders of bitcoin and miners have opposing monetary interests. Mining currently is like a bitcoin annuity since fees are negligible compared to block reward. The hope is when that transition to mining mainly for fees rolls around it will be enough. There are no guarantees it will be. It's interesting that this thread makes fun of gold needing to be dug up, transported and etc... and how bitcoin is so much better but it's ok to have bitcoin mining when it can be considered wastefull. Maybe in the future instead that big gold rock picture we'll be laughing at big bitcoin mining operations the same way.
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows.
the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT
It wasn't really a rollback. There was a bug, the code was fixed, and the current chain consisted of illegal blocks. The correct chain would have won eventually, but miners were in agreement that everybody should upgrade quickly, to minimize confusion amongst users.
Edit: The blocks were illegal according to the whitepaper. There is not really a well defined rule definition outside the source code itself, but this was obviously a bug.
A finite supply is most important imho. Also, something tells me that Satoshi et al. put some serious thought into whether or not work should be required so I definitely could be wrong.
This is the main consideration. While Bitcoin is finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. So why should the world be interested in a new "infinite" form of money. At least fiat has *some* control on its issuance by using central banks. How could it be any better to have a currency controlled by the people behind a bunch of colorful avatars on the internet?
In order for the ledger to function, the units must be scarce because the real goods and services they represent are scarce.
(*)In economics, "scarce" means "not infinite."
A finite supply is most important imho. Also, something tells me that Satoshi et al. put some serious thought into whether or not work should be required so I definitely could be wrong.
This is the main consideration. While Bitcoin is finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. So why should the world be interested in a new "infinite" form of money. At least fiat has *some* control on its issuance by using central banks. How could it be any better to have a currency controlled by the people behind a bunch of colorful avatars on the internet?
So PoW puts the scarcity into cryptocurrency.
Jump to: