http://bit.ly/1Ps7c2C
Submitted February 01, 2016 at 11:21AM by BTCVIX http://bit.ly/1m7Hyo2
Monday, 1 February 2016
E-Coin 1 year in has 100,000 users and has issued over 15,000 bitcoin cards
http://bit.ly/1UCu2ES via /r/CryptoCurrency http://bit.ly/1QSD7Kz
Japan's Largest Bank is Building Its Own Digital Coin
http://bit.ly/1PPpQmU via /r/CryptoCurrency http://bit.ly/1UCqC4U
ITT: Prescient Statements by Greg Maxwell
The important point of this is recognizing there is a set of engineering tradeoffs here.
Too big and everyone can transact but the transactions are worthless because no one can validate— basically that gives us what we have with the dollar.
Too small and everyone can validate but the validation is worthless because no one can transact— this is what you have when you try to use real physical gold online or similar.
The definition of too big / too small is a subtle trade-off that depends on a lot of things like the current capability of technology. Retep added to my thinking on this by pointing out that anonymization technology lags the already slow bandwidth scaling we see in the broader thinking, and the ability to potentially anonymize all Bitcoin activity is protective against certain failure scenarios.
My general preference is to error towards being more decentralized. There are three reasons for this:
(1) We can build a multitude of systems of different kinds— decentralized and centralized ones— on top of a strongly decenteralized system but we can't really build something more decentralized on top of something which is less decentralized. The core of Bitcoin sets the maximum amount of decentralization possible in our ecosystem.
(2) Decentralization is what makes what we're doing unique and valuable compared to the alternatives. If decentralization is not very important to you... you'd likely already be much happier with the USD and paypal.
(3) Regardless of the block size we need to have robust alternatives for transacting in BTC in order to improve privacy, instant confirmation, lower costs for low value transactions, permit very tiny femtopayments, and to (optionally!) better support reversible transactions. ... and once we do the global blockchain throughput rate is less of an issue: Instead of a limit of how many transactions can be done it becomes a factor that controls how costly the alternatives are allowed to be at worst, and a factor in how often people need to depend on external (usually less secure) systems.
...and also because I think it's easier to fix if you've gone too small and need to increase it, vs gone too large and shut out the general public from the validation process and handed it over to large entities.
.
I think you're mistaking the kind of anonymity being talked about here. Say some random authority wants to force miners to only mine transactions that the authority approves of and not mine any that match some kind of blacklist, and to not extend any chains that contain violations of these rules. If successful this would substantially undermine the purpose and goals of Bitcoin.
If it is easy to mine with relatively high anonymity— if you can validate on a single high performance server with a commodity consumer grade broadband connection and announce over tor or some other anonymity network— it would be difficult to impose such a criteria: too many miners would disappear into the mists if you tried, and so there would be no reason to try. If, instead, running a validating node (much less a miner) requires a rack of expensive equipment and a multi-gigabit network connection that is far less clearly the case.
Submitted February 01, 2016 at 01:52PM by Anonobread- http://bit.ly/1WWrzX4
QUICK QUESTION!!!
How much GH/s would I need to mine at exactly $1 USD per day?
Submitted February 01, 2016 at 04:47PM by BitcoinsBitch http://bit.ly/1QSiVIH
What is Bitcoin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVFDZsxOMRg via /r/CryptoCurrency http://bit.ly/1PPg2tf
Violent Techno-Libertarian Dystopia
The Twentieth Century was characterized politically by militant struggle between the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right.About a decade ago, I decided to myself that this Century would see a profound shift to a struggle between authority and liberty. Westerners are presently less concerned with what is politically ‘left’ or ‘right’ . . . they just want fewer laws and regulations.But they won't do more than whine. (Certainly won't bear economic dis-benefit on the basis of political principle.)So, democracy has failed. Bureaucracies and corporations are now firmly in control.However, we are now passing beyond this state. The naïve political left’s invitation to the world to migrate to Europe, the growing general consciousness of just how incompetent and corrupt governments and corporations actually are, of issues like peak soil, peak water, peak people/automation* -- all these are shunting us beyond the general political frameworks of the past.Historic waves of violent social dysfunction will sweep the world.The Net will be the battleground between cryptographically-competent libertarians and governments that will want to but won’t dare (actually couldn’t . . . ) shut down the Net.Cryptographic currencies will be integral.Conclusion: open-ended techno-libertarian dystopia.Dig it!*’Peak oil, peak soil, peak water, peak people; debt; militarism, debt, climate-change-whether-it’s-us-or-not, ‘social incoherence’ – and did I mention debt?’ via /r/CryptoCurrency http://bit.ly/1PLeaLM
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)