|
Nice Orion's Arms art. God, I hope somebody found that funny.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Tricky D posted:The closest thing we've had to a true believer in this thread was the guy who suggested that bitcoin was a viable option for smuggling money out of Argentina and he vehemently denied being a bitcoiner. Did Seraph ever show up in here? He was either a true believer or an elaborate crazy person
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Did Seraph ever show up in here? He was either a true believer or an elaborate crazy person these are the exact same thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/is-bitcoin-under-attack-spam-fees-block-size-debatequote:“There is an uptick in correlated transactions in the lower fee strata,” Garzik wrote me in an email. “This would seem to imply that a single wallet or set of wallets is potentially sending the same coins over and over, to themselves. This may be innocent transaction activity, coin ‘tumbling,’ or an unknown actor paying transaction fees to load the bitcoin network with traffic.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
The only reason that I would ever consider using Bitcoin is for the anonymity of it. However, I could never figure out how to get it without: a) linking my bank account to a bitcoin exchange 😩 (Not gonna happen) b) buying overpriced "rigs" to mine it 🙈 (gently caress you, I'll keep my money) I swear, the guy who figures out how to mine coins using an excersize bike will sell them (for real money) and make a mint. (The bikes not the coins.) HumanCoin any one? 😏 I've seen a trend of people buying things and having their money taken/taking their money back. Wouldn't it make more sense for a Bitcoin market place to preauthorize the transaction, hold the bitcoin and then release it only after both parties have been satisfied? Anyone caught reversing transactions could be banned. Accounts could be on a pay-to-play model where if someone wanted to rip off others they'd at least have to shill-out for it. Maybe it already exists, I don't know. Eh, buttcoin sucks.😂
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
A central authority controlling the flow of money? Sounds like a bank. Are you a banker? You have to tell us if you're a banker, its the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Traveling Salesman posted:
You've discovered the real reason humanity was enslaved forever in The Matrix
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Traveling Salesman posted:
There's no charge backs in Bitcoin - maybe there's bugs that allow people to take their bitcoins back but that doesn't count because it's a known issue that'll get solved eventually when everyone agrees that it's an issue and agrees on a solution. People can take your Bitcoin and not give you your weed or amazon vouchers but that's the free market in action. Hell if someone steals my bitcoins then fair play to them if I could steal theirs I would !
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Traveling Salesman posted:The only reason that I would ever consider using Bitcoin is for the anonymity of it. However, I could never figure out how to get it without: However, real anonymity requires a lot more effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
CabaretVoltaire posted:There's no charge backs in Bitcoin - maybe there's bugs that allow people to take their bitcoins back but that doesn't count because it's a known issue that'll get solved eventually when everyone agrees that it's an issue and agrees on a solution. That's actually changed, the developers added the ability to overwrite an old transaction with a new one so long as it isn't confirmed yet. So you could "pay" with a low fee, receive whatever you bought, and then submit a higher fee transaction that redirects the payment back to yourself. And some professor recently published a technique for "burning" bitcoins, which would allow the person holding them effectively run a chargeback. This is intended as an anti-hacking measure, but instead of getting your money back immediately you wind up moving the bitcoins back and forth between you and the thief until one of you gets tired and gives up. Naturally no one would ever use this in a legitimate transaction because
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The way to buy bitcoins without linking them to your bank account is Local Bitcoins or google "your city + bitcoin atm" (contrary to goon belief, bitcoin ATMs do not just eat your money and tell you to gently caress off). You don't use it to buy bitcoins from some other dude face to face. You use it to find ATMs or online offers. So someone On The Internet might be offering to sell bitcoins for Moneygram. You go to some place that sends moneygrams, put down a bunch of completely bullshit personal details, send the dude money, he picks up the money and sends you bitcoins. The correct way to use local bitcoins is to show up with a trash bag full of gift cards instead of cash, or possibly a Tactical Club
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's actually changed, the developers added the ability to overwrite an old transaction with a new one so long as it isn't confirmed yet. So you could "pay" with a low fee, receive whatever you bought, and then submit a higher fee transaction that redirects the payment back to yourself. What's the reason behind that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
CabaretVoltaire posted:What's the reason behind that? If you take the backbone principles of bitcoin as solid and good, everything to do with transaction fees make it so user hostile that it is nuts anyone thinks using bitcoin in day to day use would be good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Right, there was a desire to let people overwrite old transactions with a higher fee so that you wouldn't be making GBS threads up the blockchain with low-fee never-processed transactions. As with everything Bitcoin, the implemented solution was not fully thought through
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
That snippet of try/except code that did nothing and continued with no notification if the transaction failed is my favorite Bitcoin solution
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I don't get why bitcoin is so poo poo especially with these recent issues. There are 2 major players in the btc game that I see: China, where money is moved out of the country to circumvent law Drugs, obvious purpose Both of these represent big money and interest in keeping bitcoin viable. So why is there all this poo poo like terrible bitcoin development decisions and poo poo like "30k uncomfirmed txes" going on? You'd think with the amount of money being moved through these systems either the Chinese or dealers would have some influence to try and stop it failing simply due to incompetance???
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
like surely with the volume of cash flowing through someone like a wealthy Chinese or wealthy dealer would try to put someone in a position of veto or at least to try and stop the awful decisions implemented
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Doesn't Bitcoin Classic have concessions made to keep the Chinese miners happy
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Traveling Salesman posted:I've seen a trend of people buying things and having their money taken/taking their money back. Wouldn't it make more sense for a Bitcoin market place to preauthorize the transaction, hold the bitcoin and then release it only after both parties have been satisfied? Anyone caught reversing transactions could be banned. Accounts could be on a pay-to-play model where if someone wanted to rip off others they'd at least have to shill-out for it. Maybe it already exists, I don't know. It's called escrow, this actually did happen and was the business model for a couple of silk road v2.0 type marketplaces. Only once the people running the market realised that they had a shitload of other people's butts in escrow accounts they controlled, they took the butts for themselves and ran. See also: exchanges getting "hacked", thermos soliciting donations for " forum software ", or any other bitcoin venture that involves someone being given control over a lot of other people's butts
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Crack posted:like surely with the volume of cash flowing through someone like a wealthy Chinese or wealthy dealer would try to put someone in a position of veto or at least to try and stop the awful decisions implemented Well, let's think about those groups 1) By "wealthy Chinese" you mean the small group of miners that convert Chinese electricity into effectively-international Bitcoin. But since they're miners, they don't give a poo poo about whether or not transaction processing makes sense, all that they care about is earning bitcoins for discovering blocks. "Replace by fee" (where you can basically easily run a chargeback on any transaction) drives up the average transaction fee. A huge number of unconfirmed transactions drives up the average transaction fee. A process by which you can "burn" bitcoins drives up the average transaction fee. Miners prefer higher fees, so they have no reason to oppose any of this (in fact, they have an incentive to support literally any change that increases fees). WhyteRyce is correct, Bitcoin Classic basically had its design dictated by miners in China. The idea was to increase the block size in order to cram more transactions into a block, which miners would prefer, but they don't want the size to be too big because of bandwidth limitations. So they basically figured out how big the size could be without screwing over the Chinese miners. 2) "Drugs" represents an enormous and diverse group of people. Websites where you can sell bitcoins for drugs have been hilariously inept at security, likely resulting in far more arrests than in a universe where bitcoin never existed. So the wealthiest people in the drug trade who aren't already in jail due to using bitcoin don't want anything to do with bitcoin, since it represents a public ledger of literally every transaction ever, and associating identities to bitcoin addresses isn't actually that hard (unless you hold onto your bitcoins forever and never spend them). Also, bitcoins really only enable the digital sale of drugs, which is hard to do without some sort of pseudo-anonymous currency. This doesn't really help a cocaine manufacturer in Argentina, since their primary problem isn't the sale of drugs but rather the delivery of drugs. It's a way to more easily connect dealers to users, producers don't really give a poo poo so long as they continue to get paid. Some wealthy mega-dealer might care, but they're probably in jail right now or had all of their butts stolen by a drug exchange shutting down and aren't rich anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
You make some good points, and I agree mostly, apart from that maybe the operators of the drug markets care a lot more than the dealers themselves and have a vested interest in keeping it stable. However, other than these two groups, what are the major uses of bitcoin? I cannot think of a situation other than trying to get money out of china or trying to buy / sell drugs to use bitcoin, and if I could I don't know how I would do it. So who is making the decisions around developing bitcoin / using it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Crack posted:You make some good points, and I agree mostly, apart from that maybe the operators of the drug markets care a lot more than the dealers themselves and have a vested interest in keeping it stable. Early adopters desperately wanting to believe it's the "internet of money" that will make them rich beyond imagining. That's why every decision is so painstakingly scrutinized. They imagine the stakes to be immeasurably high, but bitcoin is irrevocably broken, so they all (rightly) see massive flaws in everyone else's implementation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
It's an al fresco laboratory environment to stress test human nature. Apparently we're good at ...
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:http://motherboard.vice.com/read/is-bitcoin-under-attack-spam-fees-block-size-debate Its cool that money laundering is their perfectly innocent and omnipresent background noise
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Crack posted:You make some good points, and I agree mostly, apart from that maybe the operators of the drug markets care a lot more than the dealers themselves and have a vested interest in keeping it stable. Why? They can use literally any cryptocurrency, they don't have to use bitcoin. The same can't be said of the miners
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
 Verge posted a story about the network transaction processing maxing out and the drama over the fork and people are saying it's not that big a deal just pay a higher transaction fee to get your stuff processed quick
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:
no fees* *frequent fees, that would get more expensive if anybody actually used bitcoin. nb: regular banks have no fees for simple transfers but then you don't get to be your own bank®
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Can we please mock the idiot bitcoiners delusion that BTC is going to take over the world without trying to feel smug about how bad the design is? I mean, cash doesn't scale either, that's why banks and credit card companies exist. The actual concept behind Bitcoin is incredibly novel and groundbreaking, even if the entire ecosystem surrounding it isn't. FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 1 BTC that I'm waiting for the NWO to cash in
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Can we please mock the idiot bitcoiners delusion that BTC is going to take over the world without trying to feel smug about how bad the design is? No It's all low hanging fruit, every last bit of it, everything is up for grabs. It's a poo poo system with a poo poo design used by poo poo people for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Can we please mock the idiot bitcoiners delusion that BTC is going to take over the world without trying to feel smug about how bad the design is? Introduction time! "I think you have met everyone here. Well, there's also revmoo the Bitcoiner but he's shy." "But he's the President of the United States. Why do they call him revmoo the Bitcoiner?" "Well, laddie, if you touch a Bitcoin even once..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I mean, cash doesn't scale either, that's why banks and credit card companies exist. The actual concept behind Bitcoin is incredibly novel and groundbreaking, even if the entire ecosystem surrounding it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Can we please mock the idiot bitcoiners delusion that BTC is going to take over the world without trying to feel smug about how bad the design is? I hope you didn't actually touch the poop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
? it's an interesting proof of concept that has legs but a lot of basic flaws that render it unsuitable for actual use. that is different from 'just a database durrrrrr why dont htey just install mongodb'
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
It's a database, that's all it boils down to. The only "neat" thing about it is any idiot can write to it. Which every idiot has done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
LethalGeek posted:It's a database, that's all it boils down to. The only "neat" thing about it is any idiot can write to it. Which every idiot has done. Well now let's not get ahead of ourselves yet. There's a LOT of idiots out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Well now let's not get ahead of ourselves yet. There's a LOT of idiots out there. 3 idiots per second is all it can handle
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
LethalGeek posted:It's a database, that's all it boils down to. The only "neat" thing about it is any idiot can write to it. Which every idiot has done. All bitcoiners are idiots but not all idiots are bitcoiners
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:All bitcoiners are idiots but not all idiots are bitcoiners But they are all potential bitcoiners, so I guess you can say bitcoin has a lot of potential!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
A crypto-currency like Bitcoin is every bit (ha!) as much a currency as a crypto-zoologist is a zoologist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
revmoo posted:The actual concept behind Bitcoin is incredibly novel and groundbreaking What bits of it do you think are novel or groundbreaking ? Oh and to pre-empt the usual it doesn't solve the byzantine generals problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
