91–100 of 253 posts
Pardon for off-topic, but the arguments he makes about double-spending (the third "rule" from that linked forum post) made me realize I have some gaps in my understanding how Bitcoin handles overlapping transactions. Suppose I have an address with 0BTC balance. (i.e. I have the private key of it on my PC. There isn't yet anything about that address in the blockchain.) Some other person sends 100mBTC to that address.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This is a malicious design decision intended to control the supply early." Cmon dude, really?
Some estimates have Satoshi owning around one million BTC. That's 5% of all the Bitcoins that will ever exist.
Pardon for off-topic, but the arguments he makes about double-spending (the third "rule" from that linked forum post) made me realize I have some gaps in my understanding how Bitcoin handles overlapping transactions. Suppose I have an address with 0BTC balance. (i.e. I have the private key of it on my PC. There isn't yet anything about that address in the blockchain.) Some other person sends 100mBTC to that address.…
So, if I send you 2 BTC to a single address, the transaction will probably have a single output. If you then try to send somebody 1 BTC your transaction has to use the entire 2 BTC input (which was the output from my transaction to you), but will have two outputs, 1 BTC with an output for whoever you're sending it to and another 1 BTC to an address your wallet controls.
So your transaction in the above example has to refer to the 2 BTC from my transaction by unique hash, it's not simply saying "send any 1 BTC from this address". This is all dealt with by your wallet.
Due to this, if transaction #2 was being processed first it would be using an input that didn't exist on the blockchain and would therefore be invalid.
Why do people persist in the idea that a deliberately deflationary currency is a good idea. It might be a good investment, but as a currency, it doesn't promote commerce and trade, it just promotes hoarding. Much of crypto-currency holders today either seem to be people seeking to get in at the top of the ponzi pyramid and sell before collapse, or people who need to avoid some legal issue, be it capital controls, dru…
The deflationary aspect is the number one reason I’ve never bought into a crypto currency. I have serious ethical and moral issues that prevent me. In addition to hoarding, deflationary currencies (like gold) cause people to spend lots of money and effort trying to get other people to buy into them too. For me, it’s a very sad thing to watch unfold. It’s like when the ‘buy gold’ commercials started appearing on Fox N…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> deflationary ? It is deflationary because it is known what the total number will be, and coins will be permanently lost over time. > Any user who joins the network They do this out of free choice do they not? No one is coerced into acquiring bitcoin. There isn't even a coordinating body, like a company, that controls the issuance or exchange of tokens. I would encourage any person that invests in anything to unders…
Bitcoin is inflationary until the year 2140, and assuming no fork changes that sooner. If you actually understand Satoshis algorithm and history you'll take notice at how the supply was intended to benefit the first few users to run the software during the brief phase of hyperinflation and production for minimal work, while later users are punished merely for running the same protocol and offering the same computatio…
Never before did I see an entire audience be wowed by a women engineer.
They ignored the whole Microsoft partnership idea; anyone that asked just was given the answer "it'd be explained in a future PR release."
The drama was IOTA lied about microsoft partnership and deemed hosting on azure == partnership with microsoft. In talks with different microsoft teams == sending support tickets on azure for different services.
Why do people persist in the idea that a deliberately deflationary currency is a good idea. It might be a good investment, but as a currency, it doesn't promote commerce and trade, it just promotes hoarding. Much of crypto-currency holders today either seem to be people seeking to get in at the top of the ponzi pyramid and sell before collapse, or people who need to avoid some legal issue, be it capital controls, dru…
Think really hard about what you’re saying here.
You’re currently very clearly working off some broken heuristics and not anything remotely resembling a rational or economically sound approach.
A couple rhetorical questions:
Would you prefer to use e.g. Zimbabwe dollars instead of US dollars? After all, if the depreciation of the US dollar is beneficial somehow, surely the ZWD is even better. If this isn’t the case, please explain your criteria for optimal depreciation.
Let’s say you kept 99% of your money in stocks. Expected growth is 10%/yr. Your car breaks down, and you don’t have enough cash to cover the damages. Are you going to sell some of your stocks?
The dollar is good for cash because it’s fungible, divisible, easily transported, widely accepted, and a few other useful properties. The fact that it depreciates over time is incidental and only tolerated because it has so many other positive qualities. No one with an ounce of sense keeps a large position in dollars, however. If you can create an asset that has the beneficial properties of dollars (fungible, divisible, transportable, etc.) and doesn’t depreciate, there’s no rational reason to continue using the dollar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm missing what the misconception is in this quote? I don't see him saying they are regulated / guarenteed or anything like that, only that people have poured a stupid amount of money into this thing.
He implies that being “live” with “real money” and a billion dollar market cap means something. It doesn’t. He says: “You do not release financial software to the general public in such a buggy state. You do not blame the victims for your software failing to function.” When in fact, you do _whatever the hell you want_. This is not “financial software” in the original sense. The fact that people put significant amount…
I'm not sure why you're arguing with him though, you seem to be in agreement!
Why do people persist in the idea that a deliberately deflationary currency is a good idea. It might be a good investment, but as a currency, it doesn't promote commerce and trade, it just promotes hoarding. Much of crypto-currency holders today either seem to be people seeking to get in at the top of the ponzi pyramid and sell before collapse, or people who need to avoid some legal issue, be it capital controls, dru…
If I want an Uber or a coffee, sure, I'll spend BTC. I could make more money by waiting, but I can't live without coffee or transportation. Why do you waste your dollars on coffee when you could invest them in a deflationary cryptoasset?
And I have serious moral objections to all existing cryptocurrencies. I'm not going to support something I consider immensely harmful as a get-rich-quick scheme.
>The IOTA source code is written in JAVA instead of C++ like most professional cryptocurrencies are. That did not instill me with confidence. This made me lose any confidence in a person's capabilities in evaluating the coin. If anything, Java is way more (or any language with modern memory management) robust choice than C++ where security is concerned. In any case, I am highly skeptical of the IOTA as well.
Ethereum has a Go implementation. The Java argument is BS obivously. The protocol needs to be valid, not a single implementation.
The problem with multiple implementations is that if there is a tiny difference in behavior between them, you can only find out after damage has been done to the network via a split/fork.