Gold getting smashed. And rightfully so.
Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin.
Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin.
I still don't get why we use gold as a "standard," anyways. Why not Platinum or something more rare?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 473. (Read 2032286 times)
I still don't get why we use gold as a "standard," anyways. Why not Platinum or something more rare?
Gold getting smashed. And rightfully so.
Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin.
Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin.
You know, gold ain't half bad if we just use BTC as unit of account.
Did great in 2014 & 2015
Gold getting smashed. And rightfully so.
Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin.
Welcome to the Age of Bitcoin.
there is a financial motive to run a free node, it isn't true altruism.
Think about why Starbucks pays to supply their customers with free wifi, and why people still pay for mobile data plans in spite of the relatively widespread access to free wifi, and it will make sense how free and paid Bitcoin nodes could co-exist.Yes, these principles are very well articulated.
there is a financial motive to run a free node, it isn't true altruism.
Think about why Starbucks pays to supply their customers with free wifi, and why people still pay for mobile data plans in spite of the relatively widespread access to free wifi, and it will make sense how free and paid Bitcoin nodes could co-exist. 
have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?
I have.1. overly complex
"Overly" is a relative statement that is only meaningful when compared to the skill of the people implementing it.
2. inefficient
Payment channels are a perfect fit for this particular application, and they can be made very efficient, both in terms of blockchain transactions needed and in terms of bytes per adjustment and frequency of adjustments.3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
If nobody can use Bitcoin without first having bitcoins, then nobody makes any money for operating a network that nobody can use.a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
I expect that enough people will realize this that a freemium model will develop. Some nodes will offer a limited number of free connection slots so there will be ways to connect and operate without paying. Those who can pay for access will get more reliable service.
there's enough of us around who will always run free nodes. it's fun, technically challenging, and just all around helpful.
it's a warm, fuzzy feeling...
there is a financial motive to run a free node, it isn't true altruism.
If Bitcoin becomes a network of much value, then anyone who has the skill and enjoys building computers, and who is invested in Bitcoin in what would be considered a small way say 21 BTC possibly even 2.1 BTC today, will likely be financially enabled and motivated to keep and broadcast a copy of the blockchain that secures the integrity of the network (note: nodes also keep the miners honest). In my view this act ensuring the coins they own on that blockchain are preserved along with the value they represent.
In a way it's like having a safe to keep your valuables, now it is you have a node to preserve your record.
have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?
I have.1. overly complex
"Overly" is a relative statement that is only meaningful when compared to the skill of the people implementing it.
2. inefficient
Payment channels are a perfect fit for this particular application, and they can be made very efficient, both in terms of blockchain transactions needed and in terms of bytes per adjustment and frequency of adjustments.3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
If nobody can use Bitcoin without first having bitcoins, then nobody makes any money for operating a network that nobody can use.a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
I expect that enough people will realize this that a freemium model will develop. Some nodes will offer a limited number of free connection slots so there will be ways to connect and operate without paying. Those who can pay for access will get more reliable service.
there's enough of us around who will always run free nodes. it's fun, technically challenging, and just all around helpful.
it's a warm, fuzzy feeling...
have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"?
I have.1. overly complex
"Overly" is a relative statement that is only meaningful when compared to the skill of the people implementing it.
2. inefficient
Payment channels are a perfect fit for this particular application, and they can be made very efficient, both in terms of blockchain transactions needed and in terms of bytes per adjustment and frequency of adjustments.3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
If nobody can use Bitcoin without first having bitcoins, then nobody makes any money for operating a network that nobody can use.a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
I expect that enough people will realize this that a freemium model will develop. Some nodes will offer a limited number of free connection slots so there will be ways to connect and operate without paying. Those who can pay for access will get more reliable service.
traditional financial mkts getting monkey hammered today.
large Dow Theory non conf in position and enlarging.
UST's down, dollar up. always thought one would go down but bonds?
Gold major collapsing, Bitcoin UP.
Gold stocks getting crushed again.
i definitely like UP:
large Dow Theory non conf in position and enlarging.
UST's down, dollar up. always thought one would go down but bonds?
Gold major collapsing, Bitcoin UP.
Gold stocks getting crushed again.
i definitely like UP:
Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology.
I should thank MojoNation. I've been musing about the problem ever since I encountered their (unsuccessful) attempt to solve it. In particularly, their experience was a great case study in why price discovery needs to be fully automatic on both sides of the transaction.Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?
To the best of my knowledge, they are aware of it. None of them have commented, however.I don't know of any immediate, specific plans to implement this.
have you considered issues of, I don't know what to call it, maybe "hyperpriceification"? That is, when every tiny thing requires a micro-transaction the system suffers from certain drawbacks:
1. overly complex
2. inefficient
3. bootstrap issues both technical and social:
a) technical: I can't get bitcoin blockchain info without paying for them, but I can't make a wallet until I get the info
b) social barriers to entry: I can't try a bitcoin wallet, just to see if it basically works, until I acquire some coin and pay for bootstrap data
Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology.
I should thank MojoNation. I've been musing about the problem ever since I encountered their (unsuccessful) attempt to solve it. In particularly, their experience was a great case study in why price discovery needs to be fully automatic on both sides of the transaction.Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?
To the best of my knowledge, they are aware of it. None of them have commented, however.I don't know of any immediate, specific plans to implement this.
Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.
By the way, part 2 will be out... soonish.Great! I'm waiting for it eagerly.
I'm going to let a proofreader go over this one rather than simply publishing the moment I finished writing the draft.
Firstly, I really want to thank you for what you've done here. You've perfectly formalized (and theoretically solved) a problem that was in the back of my mind since I've properly understood the bitcoin network topology.
Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?
By the way I've just discovered, thanks to 2112, the existence of a 2012 paper about this specific matter (introduce economic incentive to relay information through p2p bitcoin network) titled "On Bitcoin and Red Balloons":
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=156072 (1)
I've gave just a quick glance to the paper and I don't even look to their proposed solution. I've just mention it as a proof that the issue at hand is a long standing one.
(1) here http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/socialalgs/bitcoin-red-balloons.aspx you can find a brief overview/summary of the paper.
Bitcoin as an 'infrastructure' weapon in digital war.
Plenty wrong with this article ( “You don’t like us and we often don’t like you. Performing this service will in no way immunize you from applicable domestic laws, now or in the future. But we share a common enemy and will defeat it best by working together.”), however quite interesting.
"US Govt should pay Anonymous in bitcoin to fight ISIS"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/the-u-s-government-should-pay-anonymous-in-bitcoin-to-fight-isis/
Plenty wrong with this article ( “You don’t like us and we often don’t like you. Performing this service will in no way immunize you from applicable domestic laws, now or in the future. But we share a common enemy and will defeat it best by working together.”), however quite interesting.
"US Govt should pay Anonymous in bitcoin to fight ISIS"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/the-u-s-government-should-pay-anonymous-in-bitcoin-to-fight-isis/
If people can't use bitcoin as a currency right now because volatility (among other problems) makes it unusable they will use it for speculation. And that's exactly what is happening today. Pretty much nobody uses bitcoin for its intended purpose compared to the amount of people using it to profit from the volatility.
Who are you to decide what Bitcoin's "intended purpose" is? How is its speculative use as a store of value not a legitimate purpose?
When enthusiasts talk about how "volatility will decrease as adoption grows" they are talking about actual "adoption" as money/currency/store of value, not as a volatile profit-making instrument for traders and gamblers on OkCoin and Huobi...
That's just not true. By adoption what people really mean is increased liquidity. Whatever use-case this liquidity is derived from is irrelevant.
People just had to start using PCs. They can't do the same with bitcoin because of problems that will go away only if bitcoin becomes widely used, but at the same time that can't happen because of those same problems. See the paradox?
I'm not judging bitcoin for what it is used, I'm using bitcoin for what it could (and couldn't) be used.
I'm not judging bitcoin for what it is used, I'm using bitcoin for what it could (and couldn't) be used.
PCs were considerably expensive back then and before the internet there was little you could do with it from a consumer, general public standpoint. PCs were considered a niche because they were a. too expensive b. too complicated. Those "problems" were solved by increased adoption and improving technology.
This is very much the situation Bitcoin is in right now.
Regarding the "No" column, generally I've learned to ignore any criticism that starts with Bitcoin is "illiquid" and "volatile" because these are not properties of Bitcoin itself, but instead properties on how humans currently interact with Bitcoin.
When any "expert" starts an analysis with these properties, it means that they are focusing not on what Bitcoin is, but on how Bitcoin is used today. This analysis is fundamentally flaws because how we use Bitcoin can and will change over time. The only analysis that matters are ones that instead focus on what Bitcoin is and come to conclusions based on that.
Bitcoin is Bitcoin and has the same properties whether or not our interaction with it creates a liquid market or illiquid market. "Experts" that can't see that I've found never have anything useful to say.
Current volatility and illiquidity are serious problems and they make BTC unusable as a currency RIGHT NOW.
What you are saying is that people should use something that NOW is unusable as a currency (or a store of value for that matter) with the hope that it will get better in the future. That doesn't make sense IMHO.
For volatility and illiquidity do drastically decrease bitcoin needs to be useful as a currency but to be useful as a currency volatility and illiquidity (among other things) need to decrease. Paradox.
The insane volatility is not going away anytime soon.
And you are using the exact same flawed logic to say this.
I never said that people should use bitcoin as a currency NOW (you said that).
I said that to properly guess what the future will look like, it is necessary to look at the innate properties of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's innate properties are what will determine how it is used in the future, not what it's usage pattern looks like today.
Bitcoin is not perfect, and there are issues, but its current usage is a transitory property that can and will change.
Using your logic, in 1985 everyone should have sold MSFT stock because very few people had PCs "right now", but the smart people looked to what the future could look like and determined valuation based on their predictions of a changing future, not what the present looked like. You, like Krugman and all the other "experts", are predicting Bitcoin failure based solely on the present world, not a rapidly changing future world.
When enthusiasts talk about how "volatility will decrease as adoption grows" they are talking about actual "adoption" as money/currency/store of value, not as a volatile profit-making instrument for traders and gamblers on OkCoin and Huobi...
Your microsoft analogy doesn't stand because there is no paradox right there. People just had to start using PCs. They can't do the same with bitcoin because of problems that will go away only if bitcoin becomes widely used, but at the same time that can't happen because of those same problems. See the paradox?
I'm not judging bitcoin for what it is used, I'm using bitcoin for what it could (and couldn't) be used.
Finally! With Trezor Support.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113604/electrum-releases-version-20-with-2fa-multisig-wallets-and-more
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113604/electrum-releases-version-20-with-2fa-multisig-wallets-and-more
Here another article pointing out what still needs to be done, before one can get excited again about BTC prices: http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/03/03/will-bitcoin-worth-500-2015/
Quote
Lack of regulation
Are the central banks really supportive?
Bears continue to have the upper hand
Are the central banks really supportive?
Bears continue to have the upper hand
If two non-reasons and one technical trendline is all that's holding the Bitcoin price back, that's pretty exciting.
Secondly, I am missing in that article adoption problems, as on of the fundamental obstacles, BTC has to face.
Here another article pointing out what still needs to be done, before one can get excited again about BTC prices: http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/03/03/will-bitcoin-worth-500-2015/
Quote
Lack of regulation
Are the central banks really supportive?
Bears continue to have the upper hand
Are the central banks really supportive?
Bears continue to have the upper hand
If two non-reasons and one technical trendline is all that's holding the Bitcoin price back, that's pretty exciting.
Here another article pointing out what still needs to be done, before one can get excited again about BTC prices: http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/03/03/will-bitcoin-worth-500-2015/
gold is under terrible pressure since a month or so, yet, it did manage to hold above $1200. That is very positive for gold. I expect further pressure to the downside, but if it fails to break the price below $1180, expect some short rally up.
Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
And we're just getting started.
And we're just getting started.
gold is under terrible pressure since a month or so, yet, it did manage to hold above $1200. That is very positive for gold. I expect further pressure to the downside, but if it fails to break the price below $1180, expect some short rally up.
-snip-
I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell).
the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law.
nuff said
meh, thats just a brilliant argument.
You are saying 200GB SDcard isnt the result of moore's law because i lack education.
Who the fuck are you to juge?
Moore's law implies increasing transistors density whilst reducing (production) costs.
Its not because you'll pay an extra money as a dumb late consumer downstream that it is not valid.
But whatever i'll leave it to your ego.
Relevant: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns
Jump to: