Ethereum blockchain news
14 commentsSap b1 general ledger table
He ought charts find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own monster. Why people even trust the market is beyond me. Both as a technical concept and as a social phenomena. With that setup, cgminer recognizes charts of them. Belief that rig has value, the same litecoin that makes our Rig based economy run: Monster what you're litecoin is true for "real" economy, it's quite different for BitCoin.
I don't know why you call it "gamed". It's never had any affect on my setup when I've troubleshooted before. The greater fool theory, in a tulip-bubble of expectation. I've been seeing bitcoin mentioned here and there for a few weeks now.
It is risky for pool operators, hence the fee is highest. Satoshi engineered a nice exit strategy for himself. Hijacking the thread to point a major flaw of Bitcoin: Blogger 5 Disember I did not need to do anything except use 2. Ten minutes until antimatter core overload. At least if we all had the same faith in bitcoin it would be impossible for the government or central bank to devalue our currency, effectively robbing everyone of their savings.
The illusion is that it's not a pyramid scheme for the creators and early adopters. The mailing list in-crowd creates a few million easy coin first out of a total of 6. The speculators drive up the exchange value against real currency and the original 'investors' cash out their imaginary bits.
It's like how an IPO makes the original owners wealthy [nytimes. The only difference is there's no immediate cash infusion from the IPO and there's no company. Any doubts about the cashing out of early adopters that made cheap and easy coin bitcoin launched 10 months ago, when did you first hear about it?
Yes, which is deflation from the perspective of someone holding bitcoins. The value of bitcoins rises, massively, people hold on to bitcoins instead of spending them because they'll be worth more later, the value then rises further due to scarcity, causing a feedback loop.
Sure, these sorts of things have a limit, somewhere. I'm not quite sure how the people at bitcoin think this is going to work though. So it is possible that bitcoins will lose their main function, to act as a currency for exchange, and will become pur. New Bitcoins can be created, old ones never become obsolete, and theoretically, all Bitcoins are identical.
So image when a guy who owns a lot of bitcoins decides to suddenly dump them on the market. So another guy does the same to protect his investment ie: So a third guy does it. Yeah, bitcoins are no currency because there's no real market linked to it. There are no people only accepting bitcoins. Bitcoins are more like gold, except that instead of mining them, you "mint" them.
And of course, unlike gold, they cannot be used for anything if they lose their monetary value. Gold at least can be used as great conductor and for tooth crowns, or if all else fails, it still has decorative value. I just started reading up on the BitCoin infrastructure and it's quite fascinating.
I have some education in economics, but economy is not my main field, so cut me some slack. From what I understand, this shouldn't be a problem and here's why I think so. While what you're saying is true for "real" economy, it's quite different for BitCoin. When someone's suddenly dumping a lot of currency, greatly devaluating it, you have a reason to believe that this currency suddenly became less scarce. What would cause deflation in BitCoin if it took off?
If anything, if BitCoin were to take off in a major way there would be massive inflation inflation in the sense of value of BitCoin to other currencies, i. There is a finite supply of BitCoin, specifically 21 million, more than half of which have already been mined. Now let's say the BitCoin. Basically, it would have been nice if the people who invented BC had taken Econ or any sort of engineering class dealing with control theory. Everything the government and federal reserve do is evil, counterproductive and without any redeeming value.
As a result a fiat currency must have no advantages or reason for existence except to oppress the people. The gold standard must be superior in all ways. And if the gold standard is superior then something like bitcoin must be even better. That is monetary deflation relative to other currencies; that is, each unit of money e.
Inflation is the opposite: For example, computer processors have had prices fall due to technology, not because the dollar is worth more. Conversely, a civil war in, say, Saudi Arabia would make oil prices and many others rise.
Both monetary inflation and deflation can have positive and negative effects depending on the individual. With deflation, money becomes more valuable over time, so savers accumulate money simply by holding it. No risky investment needed. Debtors, on the other hand, see their debts grow over time. There is a push for less spending and more saving as it makes more sense in this environment.
Consumers may hoard cash. Inflation on the other hand means money loses value over time. Debtors see their debts lessened over time, while savers must invest to break even over the long run. In this environment, there is more spending and less hoarding. More risky investments are needed to make the same real adjusted for inflation return. This ignores interest rates and the like, fractional reserve banking, etc.
Is it really cryptographically guaranteed? From what I heard, it seems it's merely agreed upon by the majority of bitcoin users. They agree on the speed with which new blocks are produced adjusting the difficulty required for a block to be accepted , and they agreed that after a certain number of blocks, the number of bitcoins rewarded for mining a block will halve.
Blocks need to be accepted by the network in order for related bitcoins to be accepted as currency, but technically, it sounds like the network could simply change their agreements, and more bitcoins could be allowed to exist. Suppose bitcoin gets a huge influx of new users who don't like the idea that all money has been mined and possibly hoarded by the early adopters.
They agree to increase the mining rate and the reward. If there's enough of them to outnumber the old bitcoiners let's say that China switches to bitcoins and distributes its own bitcoin software , wouldn't that have an impact?
The way it works, AIUI, is the "new" bitcoins are crytographically guaranteed to be incompatible with the existing coins. So all you would have done is create a distinct bitcoin currency and would have to convince everyone to trade with your version of the coins if you wanted it to have any value. So four-leaf clovers, albinos and your brain cells will be replacing the Dollar, Yen and Euro sometime soon?
An economy is created through individuals specializing, trading with each other, and investing the resultant savings. Merchants haven't been "told" anything other than the Bitcoin exchange rate, which they can easily see for themselves [photobucket.
Probably merchants see a growing community around it right now, and are willing to take some risk now, betting on the future value of the currency, in order to profit in the future. Which is exactly what an entrepreneur is. I just finished up a property class in law school. Way back in the day, people thought it nuts to purchase or transfer rights as opposed to a real, tangible thing like, say, gold. For instance, rights to land.
You can't transfer land, I can't pick up my little corner of the earth and carry it over to you, only plate tectonics can do such a thing. So, people came up with "enfeoffment: To me, smells a lot like the fear of fiat money.
If you're interested and not a member of a Commonwealth country or derivation thereof, take a look at estates in land under the English fuedal system after William the Conqueror. Owning a piece of land is a lot more complicated than you would expect. Boom times for all 21 players involved. Or a pyramid scheme about to topple.
The former is outside the context. Bitcoin in and of itself doesn't deal with fractional reserve banking. That kind of transaction shuffling doesn't add much in the way of work really. Amount of value added is not fixed. It decreases over time, specifically every , blocks about every 4 years.
Well that's my point. Major currencies have a central bank which implements the fractional reserve. Bitcoin by design has no central bank and thus no fractional reserve. There are two problems with the highspeed wash transactions.
First it generates large numbers of events that have to be propagated across the whole network.