[doublepost=1452105175,1452104572][/doublepost]The script language is a Forth-like stack-based language deliberately designed to be stateless and not Turing complete. Statelessness ensures that once a transaction is added to the block chain, there is no condition which renders it permanently unspendable. Turing-incompleteness (specifically, a lack of loops or gotos) makes the script language less flexible and more predictable, greatly simplifying the security model.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
I know a few people who use CC for small purchases solely so that the purchases will be automatically incorporated into their accounting programs... I think that a wallet integration with accounting software could be very valuable.
The issue with a "killer app" is that it works best if it delivers immediate benefits to a single person. Like the spreadsheet. As soon as 2 specific people have to use it, usefulness decreases exponentially since its less likely that those 2 people ARE using it. Email (2 people communicating) wasn't the killer app for the internet. Email existed for many years prior to the huge adoption. It was the WEB (1 person accessing globally available data).
So the killer app needs to benefit 1 person. As cypherdoc says it is probably store of value in an environment where there's no place for cash to go -- this is clearly the case in China based on recent postings (but unfortunately many Chinese seem to be fickle in their value assessment, always chasing fads rather than value) and becoming more and more so in the western world.
It could also be the ability to pay a lot of people a little bit of casual money. But we need to find an app that fits that model. Crowd-sourced data entry, translation services, question and answer. Unfortunately many people are willing to do for free (upload traffic GPS car movement stats to Google) what they could do for money, or are willing to wait until quantities accrue for payout (for example, I just got my ~yearly $100 google blog payment).
The 2-person (transfer) "killer app" needs to wait until the 1 person use has caused mass deployment. The 2nd wave of the internet was social networking...
The issue with a "killer app" is that it works best if it delivers immediate benefits to a single person. Like the spreadsheet. As soon as 2 specific people have to use it, usefulness decreases exponentially since its less likely that those 2 people ARE using it. Email (2 people communicating) wasn't the killer app for the internet. Email existed for many years prior to the huge adoption. It was the WEB (1 person accessing globally available data).
So the killer app needs to benefit 1 person. As cypherdoc says it is probably store of value in an environment where there's no place for cash to go -- this is clearly the case in China based on recent postings (but unfortunately many Chinese seem to be fickle in their value assessment, always chasing fads rather than value) and becoming more and more so in the western world.
It could also be the ability to pay a lot of people a little bit of casual money. But we need to find an app that fits that model. Crowd-sourced data entry, translation services, question and answer. Unfortunately many people are willing to do for free (upload traffic GPS car movement stats to Google) what they could do for money, or are willing to wait until quantities accrue for payout (for example, I just got my ~yearly $100 google blog payment).
The 2-person (transfer) "killer app" needs to wait until the 1 person use has caused mass deployment. The 2nd wave of the internet was social networking...
Last edited:
nice. and BS is advocating keeping the status quo with 60% of mining in one state, China. Rand, doing everything it can to disrupt Bitcoin:
"Unsophisticated attacks are possible by governments, other non-state actors, and users of another VC; more sophisticated attackers could target services that are more centralized, even for decentralized VCs, such as digital wallets and, if applicable, mining pools."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1231.html
[doublepost=1452105806][/doublepost]well, they at least throw Bitcoin a bone:
"
Recommendations
"Unsophisticated attacks are possible by governments, other non-state actors, and users of another VC; more sophisticated attackers could target services that are more centralized, even for decentralized VCs, such as digital wallets and, if applicable, mining pools."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1231.html
[doublepost=1452105806][/doublepost]well, they at least throw Bitcoin a bone:
"
Recommendations
- The Department of Defense should be aware of the following: (1) VCs are an increasingly technologically feasible tool for non-state actors to deploy in order to increase their political and/or economic power; (2) efforts to destabilize confidence in a new VC are effective, while popular sentiment is still untrusting of VCs for common transactions; (3) VCs are just like any other service in cyberspace, and methods to successfully attack them are not meaningfully different than for any other cyberspace operation; (4) decentralization affords more, though not total, resilience to disruptions from cyber attacks; (5) the trend toward decentralized cyber service will only make it easier for unsophisticated cyber actors to have increasingly resilient access to cyber services, which is a two-way street that could enable unprecedented global access to information and communication services that, at its core, is agnostic to the national security interests of the United States."
This looks exciting ripple working on a stack to stack trustless convertion between altcoins. http://www.wired.com/2016/01/project-aims-to-unite-bitcoin-with-other-online-currencies/
@Justus Ranvier do you know anything about this and how does it compare to OT?
bellwether Nordstrom's plumbing new lows:
[doublepost=1452106607][/doublepost]Bed Bath & Beyond as bad:
[doublepost=1452106870][/doublepost]hey @AdrianX & @VeritasSapere!
here's the key to perpetual home mining profits!:
Because of nearly no electricity cost, it is profitable for a very long time.
http://blog.bitheat.io/bitheater/?utm_content=buffer016c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
[doublepost=1452107002][/doublepost]i mean really, who the hell needs energy?:
[doublepost=1452107130,1452106493][/doublepost]and you can't just say it's that we're moving away from oil. the entire energy sector, composed of companies invested in a variety of energy sources, is going off the cliff:
[doublepost=1452107342][/doublepost]oh boy. oil close to hitting new lows not seen since 2004. a violation of the 2009 low is going to be epic:
[doublepost=1452106607][/doublepost]Bed Bath & Beyond as bad:
[doublepost=1452106870][/doublepost]hey @AdrianX & @VeritasSapere!
here's the key to perpetual home mining profits!:
Because of nearly no electricity cost, it is profitable for a very long time.
http://blog.bitheat.io/bitheater/?utm_content=buffer016c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
[doublepost=1452107002][/doublepost]i mean really, who the hell needs energy?:
[doublepost=1452107130,1452106493][/doublepost]and you can't just say it's that we're moving away from oil. the entire energy sector, composed of companies invested in a variety of energy sources, is going off the cliff:
[doublepost=1452107342][/doublepost]oh boy. oil close to hitting new lows not seen since 2004. a violation of the 2009 low is going to be epic:
Here's a relevant example I learned about last night: Cody Wilson isn't really using Bitcoin for any of his projects - he's still completely enmeshed with the legacy banking system.
Why? Because he's too busy running his business to build the (not yet existing) Bitcoin-exploiting accounting tools he'd need. If such tools existed, he'd be able to escape the banking chokepoint that's currently preventing him from growing his business to meet demand (the waiting list for Ghost Gunners gets longer every month because his banking relationships limit the number and size of payments he's allowed to accept).
My standard now for an ideal Bitcoin wallet is a business accounting package that is sufficiently comprehensive to allow Defense Distributed to operate without a bank account.
here's the 10yr weekly double short ETN on oil i used to use back when, DTO. one word: launched
@cypherdoc (edit) its a great idea, lots of North American hot water geysers, are gas, but the real win is to fit a new Highrise with this type of system. I have a design for my ASIC's and other typical boards that does just this, I have yet to test it. (the one in the link looks a little crude but its going to happen).
Re: my mining profitability, I made a mistake, I'm still profitable with my 3rd Gen ASICs for another 6 months should we see a consistent 7% growth in hashrate.
Re: my mining profitability, I made a mistake, I'm still profitable with my 3rd Gen ASICs for another 6 months should we see a consistent 7% growth in hashrate.
Last edited:
@AdrianX
who the hell is @cypherblock?
[doublepost=1452108594][/doublepost]
who the hell is @cypherblock?
now that is some forward thinking! that could be incredibly profitable.
[doublepost=1452108594][/doublepost]
@cypherdoc LOL sorry, I'm on a laptop and the track pad wont select the name so I hit enter and it autocompletes, oops.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
still not bad:
[doublepost=1452110869][/doublepost]
note the divergence starting in July 2007 when the $DJT started diverging downwards compared to the $DJI which kept doing a Wiley e Coyote up into October also forming a Dow Theory non confirmation as a warning sign:
[doublepost=1452110869][/doublepost]
10 yr weekly.
note the divergence starting in July 2007 when the $DJT started diverging downwards compared to the $DJI which kept doing a Wiley e Coyote up into October also forming a Dow Theory non confirmation as a warning sign:
Last edited:
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
can someone explain how it can detach so grossly from the traditional markets? It's supposed to track BTC price, no? Why is it not working? Market makers there should be able to do arbitrage to re-sync prices, right?GBTC continuing higher:
@molecular AFAIK there is no market making because its not a "real" ETF. The only way to get new tradeable GBTC is to find someone who has held GBTC for a year and wants to sell. Of course there's an awesome opportunity for those people (who are also willing to hold for another year) to sell their GBTC and then buy it back direct (and so minting new GBTC).
This "back door" non-ETF ETF is also why it is able to be traded whereas the Wink's still needs SEC approval.
This "back door" non-ETF ETF is also why it is able to be traded whereas the Wink's still needs SEC approval.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
Over the past several weeks we have seen both many high profile people come out in favor of larger blocks and also momentum by regular users on public forums for larger blocks.
However all this support for larger blocks is spread out over many separate media, some of it is on blog posts, some in articles, some on twitter, some on forums, some on BU nodes (great job theZerg) etc. This is very different from the centralized core developer scaling plan which acts a centralized point for that view.
I think we have seen recently that support for larger blocks is vastly larger than support for small blocks. However because large blocks support is spread out it is hard for people to see that. For example there are only two companies behind Maxwell's scaling plan, but we have seen dozens of major firms come out in favor of large blocks.
What do people think about putting together a simple large block scaling plan that people can sign or commit support to. Something that clearly and simply lays out Satoshi's original vision of a P2P currency and the arguments for why larger blocks is the right path forward.
The commitment could be a simple statement that the signatories are committed to using a bitcoin with a larger blocksize than 1MB by the end of 2016. That is not a specific plan, but is directly opposite of Maxwell's plan of keeping the limit in place.
Based on what I think we've seen recently, there are many entities and people that support this and would agree to use a blocksize larger than 1MB (regardless of the specific plan) by the end of 2016.
This would also function as a central point to show where support lays. Imagine the core dev scaling plan having 40 signers and 2 companies, while the "more than 1MB by 2016" plan has 100 companies and 1000s of users.
If this makes sense to people, we could work on a draft here and then release it somehow, maybe on the BU website or something similar.
However all this support for larger blocks is spread out over many separate media, some of it is on blog posts, some in articles, some on twitter, some on forums, some on BU nodes (great job theZerg) etc. This is very different from the centralized core developer scaling plan which acts a centralized point for that view.
I think we have seen recently that support for larger blocks is vastly larger than support for small blocks. However because large blocks support is spread out it is hard for people to see that. For example there are only two companies behind Maxwell's scaling plan, but we have seen dozens of major firms come out in favor of large blocks.
What do people think about putting together a simple large block scaling plan that people can sign or commit support to. Something that clearly and simply lays out Satoshi's original vision of a P2P currency and the arguments for why larger blocks is the right path forward.
The commitment could be a simple statement that the signatories are committed to using a bitcoin with a larger blocksize than 1MB by the end of 2016. That is not a specific plan, but is directly opposite of Maxwell's plan of keeping the limit in place.
Based on what I think we've seen recently, there are many entities and people that support this and would agree to use a blocksize larger than 1MB (regardless of the specific plan) by the end of 2016.
This would also function as a central point to show where support lays. Imagine the core dev scaling plan having 40 signers and 2 companies, while the "more than 1MB by 2016" plan has 100 companies and 1000s of users.
If this makes sense to people, we could work on a draft here and then release it somehow, maybe on the BU website or something similar.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@jtoomim believes a 20-50x performance improvement in propagation is possible:
He's offered to co-operate with folks willing to assist the implementation effort.
I am running a call for interest in a separate BU forum thread (see below), and if there is much enthusiasm (which there seems to be) I am willing to step up and put significant effort into spec, design & coding.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/towards-faster-block-propagation-jtoomims-blocktorrent-proposal.742
I have also approached him by email to find out if he's interested in co-operating with us & what he considers the best way to carry this forward.
He's offered to co-operate with folks willing to assist the implementation effort.
I am running a call for interest in a separate BU forum thread (see below), and if there is much enthusiasm (which there seems to be) I am willing to step up and put significant effort into spec, design & coding.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/towards-faster-block-propagation-jtoomims-blocktorrent-proposal.742
I have also approached him by email to find out if he's interested in co-operating with us & what he considers the best way to carry this forward.