Bitcoins

MrHarris

Bitcoin may be limited in number but units of crypto are infinite with new different named versions of bitcoin being added to the supply all the time.

Bitcoin is falling like a rock now, MGox is saying there are bugs in the system and problems with taking back transactions after someone thought they have been paid.

[Deleted User]

MrHarris wrote: »

Bitcoin may be limited in number but units of crypto are infinite with new different named versions of bitcoin being added to the supply all the time.

The same is true of fiat currencies.

MrHarris wrote: »

Bitcoin is falling like a rock now, MGox is saying there are bugs in the system and problems with taking back transactions after someone thought they have been paid.

gmaxwell is one of the Bitcoin core developers:

<gmaxwell> The Gox press release seems a little ‘spun’ to me. They portray characteristics of the Bitcoin system well known since at least 2011 (which even have their own wiki page ) as something new.

These characteristics are annoying but don’t inhibit basic operation. They are slowly being fixed – but fixing them completely will likely take years as they require changing all wallet software. Correctly-written wallet software can cope with the consequences, and I cannot understand why they would gate their withdraws on external changes.

<GG> Andreas Antonopoulus has examined Gox’s code to some degree, and remarked that they are using a strange “hodgepodge of technologies that are really not suitable for running an exchange.” Do you believe the problem lies in their code rather than the Bitcoin protocol?

<gmaxwell> Oh there is a “problem” in the Bitcoin protocol, known since at least 2011 (see the link I gave). But for normal applications, not involving unconfirmed transactions, it shouldn’t cause any severe problems because wallets can handle it locally.

Basically, third parties can change the transaction IDs of transactions. This means what wallet software must be written to accomodate that and still recognize them when that happens.

What the press release talks about is adding a second kind of transaction ID, which is robust against changes, which would be helpful for tech support purposes. Though it doesn’t resolve all of the issues that being able to modify transactions presents.

<GG> So in other words, Gox should be able to account for this known problem by modifying their internal systems?

<gmaxwell> Yes, internal only changes should account for it. The only remaining issue for Mt. Gox’s application would be some tech support problems, where if a user’s transaction is mutated by a malicious party the txid ["transaction ID"] Mt. Gox told them to expect wouldn’t be the one that ultimately showed up in the blockchain.

<GG> It seems the market is reacting very negatively to the news. What advice would you give to the average Bitcoiner regarding this situation?

<gmaxwell> The challenge for me in offering something here is that this isn’t news to me – for years – and it’s never been a particularly large concern. This wouldn’t make the top ten list of dangers in the Bitcoin technology.

<GG> Thanks for your comments.

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/02/10/mt-gox-blames-bitcoin-core-developer-greg-maxwell-responds/

Bitcoin is brand new technology, this problem is overblown and has been known since 2011. Yes it needs to be addressed but that's inevitable, Bitcoin is very immature technology (it's only 5 years old). Nobody expects Bitcoin to be perfect yet... there are much bigger problems with the protocol at the moment, for example the 7 transaction/second limit.

The price of bitcoins aren't "falling like a rock", swings like this are frequent. MtGox is a trainwreck, everyone with an ounce of Bitcoin knowledge knows to ignore them.

I can't help but think you're our friend Satoshi back with a new account.

csm888

puk999 wrote: »

Gold is a finite resource. While I agree that the price is subjective and it's all speculation, there are a finite number of atoms of gold available.

From what I understand about Bitcoins, they're also finite. It gets progressively harder to mine them. However, one can "magic" into existence another cryptocurrency with a few clicks of a mouse. The number of possible cryptocurrencies is infinite.

The same cannot be done in the physical world as the number of elements is finite and most of them are useless for a currency basis. Gold and silver are the incumbents.

Gold has value because people give it value, it doesn't have any real world purpose that justifies its value. Jewellery doesn't give it value, history does.
Its values is high because people have belief and faith.

But people don't believe in the other crypto currencies, they believe in Bitcoin. I can create copies of lots of things, but whether to not people pay for it depends on if they give it value. Thats why alt crypto currencies have little value.
Why people believe in bitcoin is another argument, but your argument fails because another crypto currency is not Bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin has limited supply, and this limited supply is what contributes to giving it value.

MrHarris

csm888 wrote: »

Gold has value because people give it value, it doesn't have any real world purpose that justifies its value. Jewellery doesn't give it value, history does.
Its values is high because people have belief and faith.

But people don't believe in the other crypto currencies, they believe in Bitcoin. I can create copies of lots of things, but whether to not people pay for it depends on if they give it value. Thats why alt crypto currencies have little value.
Why people believe in bitcoin is another argument, but your argument fails because another crypto currency is not Bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin has limited supply, and this limited supply is what contributes to giving it value.

Gold does not really have any uses, maybe tiny industrial use but its valued so high so not used in a big way.

Silver is far more used in industry so far more suited to be used as money, it has far more usefulness in and of itself than gold.

kronenbourg

it will never catch on its totally pointless
you been watching too much sci-fi

it aint 2046 and it aint total recall

csm888

MrHarris wrote: »

Gold does not really have any uses, maybe tiny industrial use but its valued so high so not used in a big way.

Silver is far more used in industry so far more suited to be used as money, it has far more usefulness in and of itself than gold.

Silver is more useful than Gold.
Gold is much higher value than Silver.
Therefore, usefulness can't be the major factor which determines price.

If people empirically don't use 'usefulness' as way to determine price, the 'usefulness' argument is irrelevant. It simply boils down to belief/faith/history.

csm888

kronenbourg wrote: »

it will never catch on its totally pointless
you been watching too much sci-fi

it aint 2046 and it aint total recall

Strong arguments there... any more pearls of wisdom?

paddyrg

dryhat wrote: »

The price is irrelevant when day-trading.

Movements are all that matters.

Yes, movement and liquidity. paddyrgcoin moves regularly, but if you're trying to sell, nobody's buying, and nobody is shorting. If you can't find a buyer, day-trades are ill-fated.

sabretoothtigger

kronenbourg wrote: »

it will never catch on its totally pointless
you been watching too much sci-fi

it aint 2046 and it aint total recall

Some of the tech in bladerunner is real now. The zoomable photos I never thought would be real, they have stuff similar to that.

It has already caught on, its just a case of how useful is it compared to real currency. The main argument is in countries with no reliable money, where crypto beats gold is small speedy low cost transaction.


[The hologram projector in TR, I believe its possible to get phones which project pictures, movies even. Not quite holograms but impressive]

paddyrg

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/25/mtgox_quits_bitcoin_foundation/

GOX looks like it's been holed, bitcoin board 2 out of 4 members down, sand this thread has been eerily quiet recently.

Has the love affair of the casual speculator ended?