This will easily create too much data in the block chain.
I think it's probably better to trust online wallets to handle complex
financial transactions such a debits or credits.
If Bitcoin achieves Visa-levels of popularity, that would mean one megabyte
of transactions per second (even assuming scr
You just completely ignored my point. I'm not sure who's trying to insult
whom, or if you're attempting an argumentum ad hominem. My idea is
completely valid.
The only way to man in the middle to have such a large percentage of hash
power is to either a) attack a pool (which people would notice wh
ble comprehending why your ideas are terrible.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
>
>> I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 days, and after 4
>> blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.
>>
>> In theory, one wo
actor to do network attacks.
>
> BTW, what does "difficulty would be reset" mean? There are multiple
> ways to interpret that statement. In the most straightforward way, my
> objections apply.
>
> On 12/23/2013 05:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> > I think you misunderstood my
bble. If it were to happen to bitcoin, there
> would be sophisticated alternative to turn to, and enough time to make
> the change.
>
> On 12/22/2013 07:10 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> > I think Bitcoin should have a sanity check: after three days if
> > only four blocks have bee
I think Bitcoin should have a sanity check: after three days if only four
blocks have been mined, difficulty should be adjusted downwards.
This might become important in the near future. I project a Bitcoin mining
bubble.
>
> I believe that if there ever becomes a consensus that Bitcoin?s inflation
> parameters were a show-stopper for the Bitcoin economy, that the power to
> correct it lies with merchants, who would vote for changing the rules. I
> believe they would do this not by changing Bitcoin, but by acceptin
You're just closed minded.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> > It is not a violation of the trust of those holding the currency. Many
> > people bought Bitcoin in the hopes that it's value i
Bitcoin is made of many parts, yes, but not all parts were developed
simultaneously.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
>
>> The exchanges that are kept track of could be hard coded into Bitcoin or
>&g
goods
are using the exchanges.
My proposal will still allow for 4.9% semi-weekly variations in the price
of Bitcoin, allowing for it to appreciate 11,800% per year.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 02:01:07PM -0800, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> &g
This is no doubt probably a very controversial Bitcoin Improvement Proposal
and is also a very rough draft of one.
Bitcoin lacks a Central Bank. This is good and bad. A central bank benefits
those with political connections. But Bitcoin lacks price stability, this
generates menu costs, and incenti
11 matches
Mail list logo
