251–260 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually in the UK this is exactly what has happened since nobody pays property taxes over there. My fiancee owns her house but still pays rent to a land lord. When there are no liabilities for holding an asset, there's not a big incentive to sell it.
Not sure what you mean, since someone who owns a house doesn't have a land lord.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly, since new land isn't being created anymore, everyone is going to shamelessly hoard real estate. Why would anyone ever buy or sell a house anymore? REAL ESTATE IS ALL A BIG DEFLATIONARY SCAM- You heard it here first.
Actually in the UK this is exactly what has happened since nobody pays property taxes over there. My fiancee owns her house but still pays rent to a land lord. When there are no liabilities for holding an asset, there's not a big incentive to sell it.
How... what...? Please explain.
Some people here seem to think that this is temporary, that sometime in the future Bitcoin will stabilize into a glorious future global currency -- never mind the new class of cryptobarons it will have created from its inner circle, through shameless hoarding. My question is, what then will happen when Bitcoin stabilizes, that is, when the time to new coin mined approaches practically infinity? Let's assume the globa…
Some people here seem to think that this is temporary, that sometime in the future Bitcoin will stabilize into a glorious future global currency -- never mind the new class of cryptobarons it will have created from its inner circle, through shameless hoarding. My question is, what then will happen when Bitcoin stabilizes, that is, when the time to new coin mined approaches practically infinity? Let's assume the globa…
You are espousing one form of economics which many consider unsustainable. Regardless, many assets are deflationary. Rich people buy real estate and commodities because they are deflationary, or at least not inflationary. There is nothing wrong with assets that grow or maintain value. Bitcoin is a liquid and easily transferrable deflationary value store, just like gold. Telling people they should submit to inflation…
Edit: I don't think space colonization matters here. Sure, it may be possible. But Mars is sufficiently far from Earth and the energy cost of transport sufficiently high that a populated Mars would effectively be an entirely separate economy for everything but intangibles. I don't think a Mars colony would permit Earthly exponential growth to continue, even though Martian exponential growth could occur for quite some time. (Until Mars' own unique limits were reached.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then one day, some highly motivated attacker will come along and discover the other very interesting property: that the work needed to attack Bitcoin scales linearly with the work needed to use Bitcoin. As soon as a successful attack is announced publicly, faith in Bitcoin will be shaken to badly that nobody will ever want to use anything called "digital cash" for a long time. So the real question you should be askin…
Supposedly they can easily change algorithms if SHA-256 is broken in the future. Here is a list of client security issues: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu... It seems like the biggest risk would be with the wallet websites, which is an issue that is present in other payment methods. The biggest problem IMO is that there is no way to refund or right the wrongs done by an attack. If someone…
Some people here seem to think that this is temporary, that sometime in the future Bitcoin will stabilize into a glorious future global currency -- never mind the new class of cryptobarons it will have created from its inner circle, through shameless hoarding. My question is, what then will happen when Bitcoin stabilizes, that is, when the time to new coin mined approaches practically infinity? Let's assume the globa…
There are a few replies here that seem to be reacting negatively to the OP due to the tone of the submission instead of the content. To be clear, deflation is categorically bad for a currency. It's terrible, like great depression terrible. The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. When this happens, people react by not spending money. The market dies. While inflation…
Regardless, it is certainly a consumer's right to store their assets in something that is not inflationary, as most do. Is the population holding empty real estate or gold instead of currency really that much better for the economy? No.
Smart money will simply shift out of cash in an inflationary environment, and the value will not necessarily be productively invested.
An opposing viewpoint more thoroughly articulated:
Some people here seem to think that this is temporary, that sometime in the future Bitcoin will stabilize into a glorious future global currency -- never mind the new class of cryptobarons it will have created from its inner circle, through shameless hoarding. My question is, what then will happen when Bitcoin stabilizes, that is, when the time to new coin mined approaches practically infinity? Let's assume the globa…
There are a few replies here that seem to be reacting negatively to the OP due to the tone of the submission instead of the content. To be clear, deflation is categorically bad for a currency. It's terrible, like great depression terrible. The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. When this happens, people react by not spending money. The market dies. While inflation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then one day, some highly motivated attacker will come along and discover the other very interesting property: that the work needed to attack Bitcoin scales linearly with the work needed to use Bitcoin. As soon as a successful attack is announced publicly, faith in Bitcoin will be shaken to badly that nobody will ever want to use anything called "digital cash" for a long time. So the real question you should be askin…
Supposedly they can easily change algorithms if SHA-256 is broken in the future. Here is a list of client security issues: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposu... It seems like the biggest risk would be with the wallet websites, which is an issue that is present in other payment methods. The biggest problem IMO is that there is no way to refund or right the wrongs done by an attack. If someone…
You are not understanding the problem. Bitcoin is not a hash function, nor is Bitcoin a digital signature system. Bitcoin is a digital cash system, and so any discussion of Bitcoin's security must be based on the notion of security in a digital cash system.
There are two minimum security properties a digital cash system should have (informally): first, that the units of value cannot be counterfeited; second, that each unit of value can be spend by exactly one party at any given time. In both cases, it is commonly assumed that the attacker's work is bounded by some polynomial in the parameters of the system itself, so the system is secure if no polynomial time algorithm can break either property (but an exponential time algorithm might e.g. a brute-force approach). It is possible (and usually desirable) to prove that a system is secure using mathematical arguments, for example these systems:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F11889663_20
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=568944...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5326/5550332/05443458.pdf
(Sorry that these are paywalled, you can probably find them elsewhere)
Unfortunately for Bitcoin, while it seems to satisfy the first property (but no security proof is out there as far as I know), it fails the second property. Double spending in Bitcoin requires work that scales linearly with the parameters of the system (the "51% attack"), which is basically worthless as far as cryptography is concerned. The fact that Bitcoin uses a secure hash function and a secure signature system is irrelevant because the problem is with the protocol itself.
An easy way to illustrate the difference between using a secure cryptosystem and being a secure cryptosystem is the "surreptitious forwarding" problem. Suppose you receive a message from your boss that was signed with his secret key then encrypted with your public key which said, "You're fired!" Now what you might do is to re-encrypt the signed message with another person's key and send that to them; they would now believe that they were being fired. It is not the encryption system or the signature system that you attacked, it was the fact that composing signing with encryption in that manner does not prevent such forwarding (but there are ways to do that). Bitcoin has a similar problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a few replies here that seem to be reacting negatively to the OP due to the tone of the submission instead of the content. To be clear, deflation is categorically bad for a currency. It's terrible, like great depression terrible. The reason it's bad is that deflation makes it more profitable to do nothing than to invest. When this happens, people react by not spending money. The market dies. While inflation…
This is part of the issue. The other part is that no one has any incentive to spend money, which can cause a recession. You can either 100 units of something today, or buy 110 units of it tomorrow. This gives you a very strong incentive to wait and not spend money. This means that no one buys anything, so no one needs to make or manufacture anything. People lose their jobs, so they don't have money, so they can't buy…
In a deflationary environment, people buy less stuff they don't need today, which leads to a higher quality of economic growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The creator doesn't need a backdoor; the early adopters have gigantic stacks of BTC that has never been used. The appropriate concern is not that they have a backdoor but that they flood the market and make it crash.
What fraction of the currently mined coins is in these stacks?