It depends on if you are talking about the Spanish Real or USD, but we're talking about Bitcoin, right? Bitcoin works on discrete math. Switching to floating point would fundamentally change how blocks are made and probably wouldn't work with a cryptocurrency.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
will the socialists here please stand up and verbally defend the abused shitcoin of the day, VTC? or does your equality only extend to your favored coin? you see, Coinbase and i agree; just b/c you can go out and get a bunch of mercenary exchanges to list your shitcoin, that by itself won't protect or legitimize your coin. in fact, it is irresponsible if the coin is unsound. and that just makes the listing exchange just as unsound. as well, using exchanges to help concoct a reorg protection strategy doesn't mean you get to go out and moral haphazardly impose checkpoints on your chain to undermine sha256. if you've made a conscious choice to use sha256, then man up and be prepared to go out and invest in sha256 like your competitors to protect against a majority hash. or do what ABC did; employ a two prong approach and enlist mercenary multicoining hash from another chain:
https://medium.com/coinmonks/vertcoin-vtc-is-currently-being-51-attacked-53ab633c08a4
tl;dr these attacks are good for Bitcoin and help clarify the financial and moral needs and incentives for the future world reserve currency.
https://medium.com/coinmonks/vertcoin-vtc-is-currently-being-51-attacked-53ab633c08a4
tl;dr these attacks are good for Bitcoin and help clarify the financial and moral needs and incentives for the future world reserve currency.
Last edited:
Bitcoin may not be dead, but I can no longer identify it as a honey badger. It's a sewer rat or a politician, if their is a difference.
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
I see a lot more just "posting for your side" these days rather than open discussion, debate, and honesty.
I would vote against @cypherdoc having any admin privileges as he is one of these that seem to be , IMO, spamming this thread the most these days.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Floating points on computers are also stored with discrete maths. The way the floating points are typically encoded means they are stored inexactly which is fine for some calculations but not for financials or anything requiring exact accounting. There are other options for encoding that could be used though. I think cypherdoc was giving an example of a string encoding.
A better way of looking at it is that money is usually not represented as floating point. It just uses conventions which look like it.
For Bitcoin, the nice thing is that once you've made changes to the code to allow one decimal place and values like 3.1 or 2.6, it becomes fairly easy to add more decimal points as needed (if it's not done wrong).
I have a deja-vu feeling about this divisibility "issue"..
Do we really have to regurgitate every bullshit again and again?
Do we really have to regurgitate every bullshit again and again?
Bitcoin decimals don't exist. They are only displayed as a convenience. You would have to actually add more bitcoins over the 21 million limit in order to add decimal points with the effect of inflating the currency by orders of magnitude.
How so?
Increasing the number of decimals digit means that we are slicing the bitcoin cake using smaller and smaller slices.
Currently the smallest slice you could get is 1 satoshi, which is 0.00000001 Bitcoin or 10^-8 Bitcoin.
So let's assume for a weird moment that 1 satoshi achieve a value so high that you could by 10 coffees with just one of them.
So what if I want to buy only 1 coffee or if I want to pay 10^-15 Bitcoin per second to watch a pay per view show?
Well one way would be to have the smallest piece of cake you could get something like 10^-16.
This is not going to increase the amount of available bitcoin. This will change only the divisibility of the coin.
1 Bitcoin is still 1 Bitcoin independently by the fact you "split" it like that:
0.55 + 0.45
or like this:
4.9999999999999999 + 0.0000000000000001
Last edited:
I spam and I cannot help it:
0.655
[doublepost=1544013505][/doublepost]ABC collapsing. SV UP.
[doublepost=1544014282,1544013462][/doublepost]
0.655
[doublepost=1544013505][/doublepost]ABC collapsing. SV UP.
[doublepost=1544014282,1544013462][/doublepost]
IOW, bring Bitcoin down to the level of multiple blooming, freetraded, shitcoins.
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Payment channels.
This is the quantity theory of money, right? What assumptions does it rely on to hold?
_bc
Member
- Mar 17, 2017
- 33
- 130
Are we just looking for ways to prematurely divide us? It'll be some time before we'd "need" to increase divisibility.
At the same time, I can't help myself: I can't see what would be so bad about having 21 billion milli-satoshis. Yes, there would be more "units". But, we can all do math, right? We understand the that 1000 x .001 = 1.000, right?
At the same time, I can't help myself: I can't see what would be so bad about having 21 billion milli-satoshis. Yes, there would be more "units". But, we can all do math, right? We understand the that 1000 x .001 = 1.000, right?
@wrstuv31
I mean, suppose that with 1 sat you could buy 2000 coffee at your favorite cafeteria.
Let aside all the technical problems related to long term PC (e.g. you have to be always on line etc etc) and that you need to craft your PC system so that it is able to deal with sub-satoshi transfer.
So you decide to open a PC with your cafeteria, you lock 1 sat on that channel, at the some point in time for what ever reason you need to settle on chain, at that precise moment you have 0.3 satoshi in your channel.
Now what are you going to do if your Bitcoin is not able to deal with sub-satoshi payments?
According to QTM price level of goods is directly proportional to the money supply. So far so good. I don't see how this matter in the current argument we are discussing.
We are not discussing the amount of money supply in Bitcoin, which is assumed to be fixed. We are just speculating about a scenario where Bitcoin would be able to "represent" much more "value" than it is now, orders of magnitudes more. With that I mean having more than a billion people using Bitcoin to perform their day to day transactions.
In this scenario a satoshi (10^-8 Bitcoin) would be too valuable to buy a pizza, a coffe.. let alone perform micropayments (see the example above).
What has been discussed is to make Bitcoin protocol being able to cope with smaller unit of value on chain.
This has nothing to do with monetary supply. Not one bit.
yeah you could used payment channel (PC) for micro payments, but this is orthogonal.
I mean, suppose that with 1 sat you could buy 2000 coffee at your favorite cafeteria.
Let aside all the technical problems related to long term PC (e.g. you have to be always on line etc etc) and that you need to craft your PC system so that it is able to deal with sub-satoshi transfer.
So you decide to open a PC with your cafeteria, you lock 1 sat on that channel, at the some point in time for what ever reason you need to settle on chain, at that precise moment you have 0.3 satoshi in your channel.
Now what are you going to do if your Bitcoin is not able to deal with sub-satoshi payments?
I'd call it common sense for what is worth.
According to QTM price level of goods is directly proportional to the money supply. So far so good. I don't see how this matter in the current argument we are discussing.
We are not discussing the amount of money supply in Bitcoin, which is assumed to be fixed. We are just speculating about a scenario where Bitcoin would be able to "represent" much more "value" than it is now, orders of magnitudes more. With that I mean having more than a billion people using Bitcoin to perform their day to day transactions.
In this scenario a satoshi (10^-8 Bitcoin) would be too valuable to buy a pizza, a coffe.. let alone perform micropayments (see the example above).
What has been discussed is to make Bitcoin protocol being able to cope with smaller unit of value on chain.
This has nothing to do with monetary supply. Not one bit.
@sickpig
You are increasing the money supply, you're just distributing it equally to all holders. Miners are the engines of the economy and rely on accumulating fees over time. The fee pressure is towards the minimum unit of account for most txs. Does this give you pause?
You are increasing the money supply, you're just distributing it equally to all holders. Miners are the engines of the economy and rely on accumulating fees over time. The fee pressure is towards the minimum unit of account for most txs. Does this give you pause?
The problem is way off, so it's nice to talk freely about it as it reveals how different perspectives have formed over time. Since this isn't a pressing issue, it is possible to discuss without partisanship.
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
this is tragic: First I clicked the like button on this post because I found it funny. Then some other part of my mind saw who else liked the post and I immediately categorized the post as being "from the side I favor less" and made me click "unlike".
Then I clicked "like" again, because: fuck that divisive shit and screw that part of my mind.
[doublepost=1544030592][/doublepost]@Bloomie or anyone else have this visual problem with images being 1 pixel wide?
In this case it's probably not really a problem because most likely it's yet another screenshot of BCHSV/BCH market on coinex which I frequently check anyways.
Last edited: