Bitcoin mining made easy

[smoth]

"Contrary to reality" is such a grandios and pompous way of speaking. You asked why people called you fanatic, I tried to explain it. If your reality is so fragile that you must wail and bear fangs at the slightest disagreement, then maybe your carefully constructed social reality is flawed? Either way keep issuing your venom and you may yet see me in a much less neutral position with respect to your personal reality

[varikonniemi]

I did not ask such a thing. See the pattern here?

The telegraph has an interesting piece called the coming digital anarchy, with a nice writeup about Bitcoin's possibilities: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... archy.html

[zwzsg]

I like the idea of autonomous taxi fleets, that, thanks to bitcoin, don't need any humans in their companies, except sub-contractors hired to service and reprogram them. It's a way of bringing out the phasing out of humans for robots that I hadn't thought about.

[hoijui]

why i said you are a fanatic:
you did not accept any critique on bitcoin in 30 pages of thread. now maidsave is "the perfect system" (vari. quote).

just for the mind mastery of you understanding that bitcoin is actually not the perfect system, because maidsave is, i give you some credit, but not a lot.

you are pro system(s), which is dangerous. you should be pro (benefits for) humans. you should look at every system as flawed, not just because this is the case in reality, especially if the system tries to solve a task as complex as revolutionizing global trade. even if a system would be perfect in every way (will not happen for this task!), you should still primarily think of it as flawed, if not for anythign else, then at least for the sanity and utility of your mind.

[varikonniemi]

At no point did i not allow critique. I am sorry if you felt that way, but discussing maidsafe implementation details in this thread is in my view offtopic. Not because it would critique Bitcoin (does it even?), but because it is about maidsafe micro details, and so much in the future i would not even raise that question in maidsafe thread yet. I would not oppose it there, but i think it is premature. We don't even have a working alpha implementation yet!

I really should try and contain my language better if you honestly believe i meant _literally_ perfect. It just is so much easier to say than "i think it is really really really good and orders of magnitude above anything the world has yet seen."

That said, I don't think i said Bitcoin was perfect at any point. About maidsafe it slipped out, because honestly, if it works as planned, it is going to change the way we use computers, communication and the internet. Bitcoin "only" changed the way we do internet&transnational commerce.

I would describe this more as uncontained enthusiasm, not fanaticism. I am completely aware that perfection does not exist in nature, as everything is constantly evolving.

[Anarchid]

I would describe this more as uncontained enthusiasm, not fanaticism. I am completely aware that perfection does not exist in nature, as everything is constantly evolving.

Some of your posts seemed a bit too defensive for "just enthusiasm".

i think it is premature!

Which strikes me as strange. Yes, that question was speculation. But read your own post above: it's also filled with speculation.

Either apply your own restrictions to yourself, or welcome the effects you reap above.

Bitcoin "only" changed the way we do internet&transnational commerce.

Out of sheer nitpicking and to "get back on topic", i dispute this notion on following grounds:
1) Either your statement uses a very restrictive definition of "we", or
2) You have a grammatic error in your use of past tense for an incomplete process.

My basis for this is my own observation that my own use case for internet and transnational commerce has not been affected, and from my observation of persons around me, i think polls would suggest vast majority of people who use internet commerce have not been affected either.

[varikonniemi]

Since i cannot seem to adequately explain it, let me give you an example: Mentioning litecoin/scrypt in general was not off topic because it ties in via sha/scrypt. What would have been off topic is discussing the different parameters used in litecoin/vertcoin scrypt implementations.

I use the word we when i talk about Bitcoin because it is a public technology that is controlled by us. It has changed the way we do business because if you don't take it into consideration you risk staying relevant. A 2% reduction in the fees might double your competitor's profit margin.

The more stable your country is, and especially if it controls the reserve currency, then the benefit of Bitcoin is not as immediate (hell, it might even be seen as an existential threat to your unfair advantage). But rest assured it exists and is real.

[Silentwings]

Bitcoin .. is a public technology that is controlled by us.

Who is us?

I suspect that the people who recently lost a large amount of money when a somewhat large exchange went "bankrupt" in somewhat colourful circumstances, followed by its executors refusing to travel or stand trial, may not feel included in "us".

[varikonniemi]

Bitcoin is controlled proportionally by every miner, limited by the Bitcoin software every user run. Mtgox was a private company that ran a sort of ponzi scheme. The only thing it demonstrated is that financial crimes are committed when the payoff is perceived bigger than what the laws can punish you with. This is just as rampant in the traditional banking sector. And there we talk about 5 orders of magnitude larger crimes going unpunished.

[Silentwings]

Bitcoin is controlled by anyone who mines, limited by the Bitcoin software every user run.

I see no justifcation for this statement whatsoever - what "control" does mining a bitcoin give?

Mtgox was a private company that ran a sort of ponzi scheme.

Your words, not mine - afaik so far they have offered no believable explanation for their failure. In fact the head of MtGox was a "board member" of bitcoin, whatever that means - officially it means he held a position in which amongst other things he was supposed to protect bitcoin. Probably it means having more control in administrative terms than an average bitcoin miner, and certainly more "control" based on the eventual magnitude of effect he/MtGox had.

The only thing it demonstrated is that financial crimes are committed when the payoff is perceived bigger than what the laws can punish you with. This is just as rampant in the traditional banking sector.

No, it isn't. MtGox at its peak, shortly before it got caught / went tits up, handled over 70% of all bitcoin transactions. I don't think you'll find a single comparable event for any other currency (using the term loosely) or foreign exchange in ~recent history. Morevoer, the banking sector has long established systems of oversight to estimate the extent of and to uncover fraudulent activity - bitcoin has neither.

[varikonniemi]

I see no justifcation for this statement whatsoever - what "control" does mining a bitcoin give?

They control what they add to the blockchain. The client software controls what they accept as an addition. Together this is all that controls Bitcoin.

In fact the head of MtGox was a "board member" of bitcoin, whatever that means. Probably more control in adminstractive terms than an avergae bitcoin miner

They were a member of Bitcoin foundation. Just another foundation that happens to employ the lead developer. And he can only make suggestions. And push alert messages to the client using a code he has.

[Silentwings]

They control what they add to the blockchain. The client software controls what they accept as an addition. Together this is all that controls Bitcoin.

Tell that to the people whose bitcoins vanished, I'm sure they'll believe you.

[knorke]

Mtgox was a private company that ran a sort of ponzi scheme.

I almost lost my shit back then because i could just not see how people could make such a leap of logic. Or factually erroneus claims like "ponzi scheme".

The only thing it demonstrated is that financial crimes are committed when the payoff is perceived bigger than what the laws can punish you with

Was it not one idea of BTC was to prevent excactly such things. To prevent banks, states, companies from exploiting and scamming the peoplepersons. To be better than current system?
Imo it demonstrates that decentralisation is not possible, there will always be structures forming.
They grow into big players against whom the small peoplepersons are just as powerless as before.
Meet the new boss!
Same as the old boss!

[varikonniemi]

Bitcoin is controlled proportionally by every miner, limited by the Bitcoin software every user run. Mtgox was a private company that ran a sort of ponzi scheme. The only thing it demonstrated is that financial crimes are committed when the payoff is perceived bigger than what the laws can punish you with. This is just as rampant in the traditional banking sector. And there we talk about 5 orders of magnitude larger crimes going unpunished.

If your local walmart goes bankrupt and looses all money that is in the users store credit accounts, do you blame the federal reserve? When users sent their bitcoins to mtgox they got in exchange IOU goxbux. Only when they cashed out their goxbux did they again have bitcoins.

Centralized systems are way easier to implement. Decentralized exchanges are currently in beta, decentralized mining is also in beta. Slowly but surely...

[Silentwings]

If your local walmart goes bankrupt and looses all money that is in the users store credit accounts, do you blame the federal reserve?

No, typically you get most, if not all, of your money back from an insurer and there follows an independent investigation into whether any crime was commited. Of course Bitcoin is capable of neither of these things, since, by design (and unlike the banking sector), it has no system of oversight, no record keeping and no way of enforcing accountability. Further, maybe 0.0001% of the total transactions are involved in a local Walmart (rather less than 70%) and due to that the central bank has no need to act.

On the other hand, if my local Walmart carried 70% of the transaction of the currency, the manager of my local Walmart was on the board of the central bank, tasked with protecting the currency, and he was currently hiding in a foreign country refusing to stand trial, without offering any explanation of what happened and making no attempt to refund the "vanished" monies, and he was not the only board member of the central bank subject to money laundering investigations .... then I might be tempted to question the integrity of the central bank.

[varikonniemi]

The only thing it demonstrated is that financial crimes are committed when the payoff is perceived bigger than what the laws can punish you with. This is just as rampant in the traditional banking sector. And there we talk about 5 orders of magnitude larger crimes going unpunished.

[knorke]

Hm varikonniemi seems bit like you are cured from BTC fever now?
In 2013 I (and others) warned about exchanges becoming evil like banks You thought "Comparing to banks is just silly", now you compare with traditional banking sector yourself.
And with hindsight maybe also see how your "Selling on the way up and buying on the way down" was very similiar to the speculations that traditional banks do with your money...

Decentralized exchanges are currently in beta, decentralized mining is also in beta. Slowly but surely...

Yes, ok. But if it is in beta then why does it need to be tested on real money?
That just overshadows everything, like was seen with BTC: 100$! 200$! mine-mine-mining! 700$! To the moon!
Together with the "epic winnings" from early adapters it makes for gaining good momentum/hype/publicity at the start but there needs to be something built-in that stops this speculation madness.
Otherwise the transaction to some serious use becomes increasingly harder.

[varikonniemi]

Yes, the failure was one of the market actors making bad investment choices with their BTC. Not a failure of BTC.

[Silentwings]

... typically you get most, if not all, of your money back from an insurer and there follows an independent investigation into whether any crime was commited. Of course Bitcoin is capable of neither of these things, since, by design (and unlike the banking sector), it has no system of oversight, no record keeping and no way of enforcing accountability.

This is also a serious failure, and a fundamental failure of the Bitcoin system. The banking sector also has a system of law, oversight and record keeping designed to prevent large exchanges/banks from "bad" investment choice and/or too much exposure to risk and for protecting consumers/businesses when they do fail. By contrast, and similarly to the lack of any fraud prevention, Bitcoin & friends, by design, lack even the possibility of implementing any such system.

[varikonniemi]

Bitcoin has very effective bookkeeping. Un-falsifiable unlike bank records. Combined with subpoena the pseudonymous identities can be converted into real identities. I think this is one of the biggest flaws of Bitcoin, and it is fixed by safecoin& Bitcoin's dark wallet project that is in alpha.

Some exchanges have insurance policies nowadays.

All that is missing is the will to investigate&prosecute. Just as in the traditional banking sector.