This will happen when "better currency" doesn't mean more compliant to regulators. Probably never.
Only twice.
If you look at the decline on the proper scale, then you can see that it's much more gradual and constant.
We are taking lumps as they come, rather than kicking the can and piling onto the business cycle by constantly forcing loans out of future generations (of hodlers), with inflation.
The Austrian model, of frequent small recoveries, is winning on its own terms. It's not causing a depression any more than cheaper cell phones have caused a depression.
In order to get into bitcoins, you have to deal with the volatility. Everyone who decides to do so, at the very moment of that decision, also shrugs off sticky wages. The problem doesn't exist here.
The main reason ASIC resistance exists is that the people who can find a reason to sell it have the opportunity to cash out on ICOs worth thousands of bitcoins. So they look very hard for a reason, and become quite sure for themselves that they have found one. Nobody hands money to an unsure salesperson.
Selection bias.
It points to bitcoinmining.com in the participation page. This recommends Antminers. Nobody should be buying Antminers.
I found the rat poison comment really odd. It’s very unusual for Buffett or Munger to attach any particularly emotional or pejorative language in any of their comments on anything.
It’s very unusual for Buffett or Munger to attach any particularly emotional or pejorative language in any of their comments on anything.
BRK is made of nearly 40% bank stock.
Insurance is the major industrial promise of smart contracts. It also happens to account for about a third of Berkshire Hathaway's operating income.
Perhaps 70% of BRK is at risk.
(The major intrinsic promise of smart contracts is moving your bitcoins exactly when and only when you want to, using LN and multisig.)
edit: add bank stuff
This deserves all the upvotes.
Rofl.. Darknet markets can easily be accessed and used by minors wherein only the lowest form of criminal scum would sell to a child.
How many children have bought and overdosed on drugs through the dark web?
There were several ODs, although you'd have to read the court case to figure out if any were minors. Vice News mentions one death of a minor, although not exactly an OD, more of a bad trip.
He should have stopped at his wild $500k prediction. But he had to double down.
He didn't double down. He moved the date.
a cash system can occur
We already have cash. What does this mean?
retail prices become a decreasing fraction of overall consumer bargaining power
How is a price ever a bargaining power?
This is cash in the context of micro transactions which the current system makes difficult.
Bargaining power ? If prices are a decreasing fraction of consumer bargain (disposable income), then micro transactions become possible. Perhaps 'power' is mis placed in this context, but what it alludes to is the mitigation of mental transaction costs as 'cash' increases in purchasing ability.
In a historical context, this is why haggling reduced - it's not worth the effort
I get it. Existing fiat currencies then shift their usage into a role we previously thought of as micro transactions.
I don't think you understand how insurance works. Or government for that matter.
FDIC insurance is a U.S. federal government liability, you're claiming the U.S. federal government wouldn't be able to repay in the case of a financial crisis, which is preposterous and contrary to what we saw in 2008. Not only is the U.S. government well capitalized enough, they can raise taxes and print money.
Do tell. How will they print bitcoins?
Who cares how many dollars they have to print to reimburse you in Bitcoin as long as you get your Bitcoin. More likely though you'd just get the equivalent USD value and you'd have to convert it yourself.
Will you take Bolivars?
Do you think the USD is that special? Most of us don't think so.
Just so I have a better understanding of what's actually going on here:
Let's say I have a channel and the other party settles at "sequence number 6" and it confirms, but I have sequence 7 right here.
If I do nothing and then they spend those coins to a different address, I would assume those are theirs now, and they should be.
If I post sequence 7 before they do anything, what exactly happens during this "override" process?
Better question I guess is, what is the timelock period that allows me to contest after it's already been confirmed?
AFAICT, the timelock is the same as it was.
Right all this is really doing is allowing the newer sequence to reference just the original transaction, not the entire chain of updates.
I was under the impression that something else was happening but it seems like /u/cdeckers's original reply was about what happens in general, not the eltoo change, which is what originally threw me off.
Well, one difference is that during override, the eltoo change allows a later sequence to non-punitively prevail in closeout, no matter what the channel balances, rather than relying on unspent channel funds as a penalty disincentivizing incorrect closeout.
Unreadable due to privacy wall: "You're using a browser set to private or incognito mode. To continue reading articles in this mode, please log in to your Globe account."
Don't forget classic
And XT.
It's pretty normal for Bitcoin to be under attack, and mount a community response.
thank you, that makes sense. This might not have even been a scam, but simply a used ledger being sold and an Amazon employee grabbing the wrong one.
Anybody who puts a seed in before reselling is out to scam.
This also makes scriptless atomic swaps possible.
The title is misleading and the better place for this is in r/Ethereum. I’m sure they haven’t seen it.
The exploit was limited to half a dozen minor coins who applied non standard ERC20 code to their contracts. The author even stated this himself “...In spite of the fact that the identified bugs may not be directly tied to the ERC-20 standard”.
It doesn’t need to be made more than it was.
In spite of the fact that the identified bugs may not be directly tied to the ERC-20 standard, many crypto exchanges have opted to halt all actions pertaining to ERC-20 digital tokens until further notice. Some of these exchanges include giants like Poloniex and Changelly.
edit: Other exchanges that the article says suspended all ERC-20 tokens: Huobi, OKex.
Make a deal with a family member.
Erik Voorhees: “Roger - please stop referencing me to back up your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It isn't. Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.”
twitter.com/ErikVo...And you are fucking it up on the bcash subreddit
He said that in replying to a post which stated that the BCH chain could receive more accumulated work than the BTC chain, and only then it might be considered Bitcoin.
That's historically been the definition and the reason why BTC is Bitcoin now, not BCH. If 90% of the hashing power chose the BCH fork and it quickly outpaced the BTC chain then it would have become Bitcoin, at least in the eyes of most people.
That's historically been the definition
Nope! My node only measures accumulated work on a chain using valid consensus rules. Bcash could have more work, and it would never be a valid chain.
You're implying it's impossible for the community to change consensus rules and for it to still be Bitcoin, which is an opinion you're welcome to hold but I think it's self-evidently wrong. If 99% of people agreed to change the consensus rule I guarantee you everyone would will be considering it Bitcoin and you'd be off in a corner with a few other people claiming it isn't.
No I'm not implying that. I corrected your definition, and I'm done doing that.
You're fine. Read up on the details of the exploit reported. It only worked if you don't generate a new seed on the device.
Flash the new firmware, make sure you generate a seed, and there's no way you get scammed.
WikiLeaks will call for a global blockade of Coinbase next week as an unfit member of the crypto community. Coinbase, a large Californian Bitcoin processor, responding to a concealed influence, has blocked the entirely harmless @WikiLeaksShop in a decision approved by management.
twitter.com/wikile...As someone who was around Bitcoin before Coinbase existed, there were many fears about what it meant to have a corporation that has so many ties to existing regulatory and banking systems. Would they be supporters of the decentralized vision? Or would they quickly succumb to the type of control typical of most centralized entities either by forced compliance or by greed?
It didn't take long to know the answer to that.
First, was their inclusion of a phishing scheme called BCash as if it was legitimate. They either didn't do their homework and were ignorant, or had business ties to it. Either way, it was a clear sign they were failing.
Second, was their lackluster attempt at protecting the privacy of their users. They are now happy to report users to the IRS, both via the summons and via proactive actions of reporting trades as if they were a typical brokerage. Rather than side with customers, and prefer to shut down and burn their data, they preferred to sell out their customers in order to survive. It may have been the correct business move, but the incorrect moral move.
And Bitcoin, without the principles, is worthless. Coinbase has proven to only be about making a buck, and has no respect or loyalty to it's customers or to the purpose of Bitcoin's entire point of existing.
Coinbase was initially a good on-ramp for dollar to bitcoin conversion, but now, it is probably doing more harm than good. Even if Coinbase has accelerated the price of Bitcoin by making it easier for people to "invest", at what cost?
If we lose what Bitcoin is, we might as well be PayPal. And that is not what I signed up for.
First, was their inclusion of a phishing scheme called BCash as if it was legitimate.
I agree, and I like your identifying it as a phishing scheme, which is under-appreciated. I wouldn't call it "first", though.
Coinbase has been trying to disrupt and control decentralized development long before that. Brian also threw his weight behind "XT", "Classic", "Unlimited", and "S2X", all of which were failed attempts at divide and conquer. The Hearnado was one public display of XT's fallout.
TLDR..?
If hashrate increases "fast enough", even near an initial exchange price of zero, then a virtuous price spiral can be shown to exist "as long as a positive mass of agents values censorship resistance or trustlessness".
On the demand side, the price increases with the number of network participants and the average censorship aversion value. Furthermore, if consumers expect a higher (lower) network size in the future, the market clearing price increases (decreases) today. Thus, high volatility in expectations on network size will translate into high price volatility. This intuitive property finds a formal representation in the closed-form expressions in Theorem 1.
The authors rely strongly on a notion of trust in the asset. When looking for numbers that can be measured, they pick hashrate as their proxy for trust. As was made clear during the Segwit2X attack and UASF defense, those who run a full node don't have to trust the miners to verify the blockchain. The authors are aware of this distinction, but don't have a completely satisfactory way to build it into their model. They address this in a footnote on page 8, and add a variable in a later section.
The paper tries to build a mathematical foundation for what we've been observing. It is written in academic language that can provide a useful counterpoint to banking monopolists who still claim that Bitcoin has no value. It could also help quants.
For those not in the know. I think Imperial were one of the very first to deep dive into Bitcoin & Blockchain more than a few years ago now.
Mr Pagnotta's coauthor, Mr Buraschi, is Chair of the Finance Department.
I'd say they're paying attention! I'll be paying attention to them in return.
