Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoins reached $300

news.ycombinator.com

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people bet on Bitcoin becoming world money. Then you don't need to "liquidate" it at all. At the same time, market evolves: the more people invest tomorrow, the more btc you will be able to liquidate. When Bitcoin becomes a world currency, then capital controls wouldn't matter.

I know that. Bitcoin's main risk is that it can make a person's fortune known, and accessible (or rather vulnerable.) "You have 50,000 bitcoins.. transfer them to me now or alternatively do xxxx now .. or else." In fact some sort of time-lock or trusted partner would be a good busines idea, so that someone couldn't just come with a gun to your head. It can't become a world currency because it makes people too persona…

People can find out about your coins the same way as they find out how much gold you have.

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The block size blockchain fork was resolved on an ad hoc basis. There was nothing in the software to deal with it. Miners lost rewards over it (or at least, wasted cycles).

Software has bugs. They need to be fixed and some people may lose money. This story only proves that incentives are correctly working in favour of everyone: miners voluntarily chose to lose rewards and stay compatible with the older network to not shake confidence in it. The point is not to have a perfect system (which is impossible), but to have proper motivations for everyone to play along instead of cheating and s…

Well, now we are running away from "strictly followed" and "very strictly specified".

I guess I would be happy if you always posted a disclaimer with such claims, something like "But of course all software has bugs and who knows how severely a given bug in the bitcoin software will impact the network".

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#123
post #118
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that coins must sit idle for a full year before they "evaporate." If you simply create another wallet, or another wallet address, and move your coins (transact) without buying or selling anything, you fulfill the demurrage requirement and your coins don't evaporate. If you work with large amounts of digital money and you don't check on it for a year, quite frankly you deserve to lose it! You shoul…

I'm pretty sure you have some savings or belongings that you didn't touch for a year or more. Can I have those?

I have a closet full of crap that you are welcome to mine for good stuff. There are probably some old PS/2 keyboards and non-working motherboards in there, as well as questionable power supplies. I don't have time to look at it.

People even call me a hoarder, luckily I've got it down to just one closet now because of repeated moves. I can promise I don't have savings in excess of the bitcoins I already mentioned, sadly.

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#124
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that coins must sit idle for a full year before they "evaporate." If you simply create another wallet, or another wallet address, and move your coins (transact) without buying or selling anything, you fulfill the demurrage requirement and your coins don't evaporate. If you work with large amounts of digital money and you don't check on it for a year, quite frankly you deserve to lose it! You shoul…

"you deserve to lose it" Your opinion is irrelevant. People will not put money where they need to run some robots just not to lose their funds if they have a better alternative. Freicoin thus will never have any value and therefore no one would use it as a currency. Terracoin is essentially the same as Bitcoin, but is compatible with Bitcoin ASICs and thus prone to attacks from their part. Litecoin, on the other hand…

You say "leaking" but it's not leaking. It's demurrage. If you leave it alone for a year, it _all_ goes away. That's not a slow leak, that's making a bad decision and failing hard in a preventable way.

My hat is two sharks, your argument is invalid[1]. Asserting confidently that bitcoin is a transaction network not a value store mechanism, and that "people like you" who have excess value are the ones who attack it, by keeping the bitcoins and speculating that they will be worth more later, rather than executing or transacting with them, just holding them as some kind of "savings."

Terracoin is "susceptible" to attack by ASIC just as Litecoin is "susceptible" to the "millions of GPU-toting gamers" attack vector. Mining is "investing" in the network, and if your only interest is to see yourself on top and the network in shambles, you could probably find a better way to invest.

Then again, some people are anarchists.

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that. Bitcoin's main risk is that it can make a person's fortune known, and accessible (or rather vulnerable.) "You have 50,000 bitcoins.. transfer them to me now or alternatively do xxxx now .. or else." In fact some sort of time-lock or trusted partner would be a good busines idea, so that someone couldn't just come with a gun to your head. It can't become a world currency because it makes people too persona…

People can find out about your coins the same way as they find out how much gold you have.

What website would you go to to find out how much gold I hold?

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#126
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you deserve to lose it" Your opinion is irrelevant. People will not put money where they need to run some robots just not to lose their funds if they have a better alternative. Freicoin thus will never have any value and therefore no one would use it as a currency. Terracoin is essentially the same as Bitcoin, but is compatible with Bitcoin ASICs and thus prone to attacks from their part. Litecoin, on the other hand…

You say "leaking" but it's not leaking. It's demurrage. If you leave it alone for a year, it _all_ goes away. That's not a slow leak, that's making a bad decision and failing hard in a preventable way. My hat is two sharks, your argument is invalid[1]. Asserting confidently that bitcoin is a transaction network not a value store mechanism, and that "people like you" who have excess value are the ones who attack it, b…

[1]: http://alexsegura.tumblr.com/post/8691920116/my-hat-is-two-s...

Think of it this way. If I told you I was keeping my savings in bitcoin, and I've saved hundreds of bitcoins for the last two years, and never converted any of them to cash, and never spent any of them in the last two years, you would probably say "Wow. You've missed at least two great opportunities to cash in on terrible market crashes. You could have had thousands without investing any more real money, you'd be filthy rich and have placed nothing at risk."

Certainly I could have done better if I had made _some_ trades. History tells me I personally will pick the wrong times to trade, and the above strategy is probably best for me, given my strong propensity to buy high and sell low (otherwise I would have those hundreds of bitcoins still.)

But if you've never made a transaction, you have never realized any of the value, and an argument can be made that your entire portfolio is at risk.

Just like buying 50-year bonds, there is a risk you won't live that long. Nobody's going to contact your next-of-kin to alert them to your bitcoin holdings if you die having kept them a secret. That's a real danger to the network, and with a cap on the total number of bitcoins, it causes real harm to everyone when those coins are lost, unaccounted.

At least with someone moving them around from time to time, you will be able to know that the keys have not been erased and "those coins are still alive," you won't spuriously inflate the value of your own and your neighbors' coins on public exchanges, opening yourself to the real dangerous Satoshi attack of "rising from the dead and seizing all of the at-risk cash on everyone's trading accounts." If Satoshi ever comes back, we will likely have made him fabulously rich and all because we didn't think of it first, and people like to jump on bandwagons.

No contract! No fair. Ergo, demurrage is good.

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#127
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer localbitcoin and bitcoin-otc, but I do have an verified account in MtGox.

I wouldn't trust Gox as far as I could throw a piano right now. I've been waiting more than 24 hours for a BTC withdrawal. It's not even showing up on blockchain.info yet. Search the forums there are a lot of people this is happening to. Some with more than 3 days. I'd be EXTREMELY cautious and suspicious about Mt.Gox right now. Make very sure you can get your BTC/USD out of Gox before you trust it.

24 hours? but did you pay a fee? sometimes if you don't pay a fee it takes long time until some block includes your transaction, and specially when the difficulty of the network is high (like now).

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#128
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but due to the deflationary nature of BTC (limited supply, increasing demand), when that happens, those fees are worth more (in government backed fiat currencies) than they are today. It's like being upset that the original miners could get a block reward of 50 BTC for mining on a CPU but today you have to use specialized hardware for less BTC. But as competition increased (and difficulty increased),…

I am still learning about Bitcoin... so these may be a silly questions or questions based on wrong assumptions. From what I understand, as you get close to the max (21 million or so) the coins are harder to mine. Does that not mean transactions take longer to verify? And if you cannot verify transactions in a 'timely' manner is the system effectively dead? What is the acceptable user experience for maximum verificati…

The difficulty will increase in response to the hash rate of the network, it doesn't directly correlate to the amount of coins in existence. So when the last BTC is mined, if people stop mining the difficulty will go down (after about 2 weeks I believe) and if more mine, it will still go up.

The difficulty is designed to be at a rate that will see a block mined every 10 minutes. So the ideal max verification time should be about 60 minutes (6 blocks) on average, although you should see your transaction included in the next block mined (in 10 minutes-ish, assuming the miner included your transaction, which they have an incentive to do if you included a fee) but to stop a double spending attack, it would be unwise to consider a transaction verified after 1 block, 6 blocks makes sure your transaction is not lost in a blockchain fork or part of a double spending attack. Some people consider 3 blocks to be enough verification time, it depends on how much money you are dealing with but the recommended amount of 6 blocks is in the original paper.

The last block to generate BTC that will be mined should happen in around 2140 (with the reward halving every 4 years) and then there will be a maximum of 20999999.9769 BTC in existence.

Interestingly enough, if you flooded the network right now with your own transactions and included a higher than normal transaction fee on those transactions, you could conceivably block other transactions from being included in the blockchain, at least for a while. Last time I calculated the cost of such a scheme it was about 72BTC per hour, so even without fixing the scaling issues of transaction volume in BitCoin, the rise in price makes this sort of attack less likely (still theoretically possible).

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#129
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Take a look at this explanation: http://www.fool.com/foolfaq/foolfaqcharts.htm

Ah, that makes perfect sense. With a logarithmic chart, each change is seen in the context of the current value. Each change is not equal to every other change. When bitcoin is worth $1, and it goes up one more $1, that's a much bigger change than when at $300 it goes to $301 but to have the line the same length is kind of misleading.

Re: Bitcoins reached $300

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't trust Gox as far as I could throw a piano right now. I've been waiting more than 24 hours for a BTC withdrawal. It's not even showing up on blockchain.info yet. Search the forums there are a lot of people this is happening to. Some with more than 3 days. I'd be EXTREMELY cautious and suspicious about Mt.Gox right now. Make very sure you can get your BTC/USD out of Gox before you trust it.

3 days? People haven't been able to withdraw BTC to USD in months as far as I was aware. http://www.reddit.com/r/mtgox

Not BTC to USD. Just plain BTC to my wallet.

This is happening to a lot of people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324918.60

Post reply on HN