[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 9915.42 US Dollar For One Bitcoin.......Down 15 December 2017 17,900 (Page 5 of 89)
|
Quoted:
he simply forced a hard fork to get the money back -- retroactively -- You're really gonna come in here with that bullshit? Tells me you don't have the slightest clue about decentraliztion. And to be clear, this has nothing to do with Ethereum or other project for that matter. The only thing the devs can do for any of these projects, is write code, compile it, and offer it up to the community as binaries (or let the community compile it themselves -- it is open source, afterall). From there, it's up to the miners and users to choose to run said binaries, or not. Nobody can force anybody to do anything. So please, let's stop with the butthurt FUD. |
|
@SimonPhoto
Since you seem to be the most knowledgeable here of how it works, how would you explain the concept to someone who doesn't know anything about it? A coworker is extremely skeptical, and thinks the creator can rig the system. Can you dumb it down, because I don't know enough about the inner workings to explain it. |
|
Quoted:
@SimonPhoto Since you seem to be the most knowledgeable here of how it works, how would you explain the concept to someone who doesn't know anything about it? A coworker is extremely skeptical, and thinks the creator can rig the system. Can you dumb it down, because I don't know enough about the inner workings to explain it. Bitcoin isn't a piece of software like you normally think about it - it's a protocol. More than 50% of miners have to agree to any change made to the algorithm that creates new coins, else they will end up mining on a different "fork" of the blockchain. This consensus-based approach is most of what made Bitcoin special when it came out; it was the first large-scale deployment of a system that solved the Byzantine Generals' Problem, which in short means that there is no "central authority" in the Bitcoin network. Satoshi Nakamoto is the presumed pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin. No one is even sure if Satoshi is/was one person or a group of people. Even if he were to pop up today, he would have no more technical ability to change how Bitcoin works than I do, because of the novel consensus model above. As for the protocol itself, the best way to think of it is as a bunch of actors whose interests are balanced against each other: * people making transactions want to use the lowest possible fee; miners want to make as much money as possible from fees. There are a limited number of transactions per block, therefore those with the highest fees get included first. * a block is found whenever a miner finds a value for which the hash is a number less than a certain value. That value is reset every so often (as specified in the protocol), so as more people with more powerful computers join in mining, it gets just hard enough to find a block that one is only found every ten minutes (on average). Finally, the "blockchain" itself is a list of all transactions that have ever taken place on the network. It's impossible to hide a transaction, as the act of transacting makes it public. This makes it completely impossible for someone to deny or reverse a transaction. There are theoretical attacks that are possible against Bitcoin. One, that was once successful, is to create a large number of transactions for very small amounts (e.g. "dust"), thereby filling up the available space for transactions and bringing things to a halt. This was solved years ago by establishing a minimum transaction size, which makes it economically infeasible to do again. Another is a "51% attack", where an individual actor controls over 50% of the mining power on the network. This is a valid threat, but requires either a cartel of miners (which has thus far proven to be impossible to assemble) or something like the NSA deciding to throw billions - with a "b" - of dollars of computing power against the network to overwhelm it. The more miners there are in the world and the better their equipment is, the higher the barrier is to making this happen. What's more, the cost to execute a 51% attack is significantly more than could be gained by compromising the entire network. As for breaking the cryptography itself, first of all, if you are able to do so then you'd make a lot more money hacking banks; they use the same algorithms. Second, Bitcoin uses two unrelated hash algorithms to protect transactions (SHA256 and RIPEMD-160). Both of these would have to be broken before the Bitcoin network can be compromised. There is obviously more to it, and I've skimmed over some details in this description, but I tried to hit all the high points and counter the typical arguments from ignorance. Let me know if I can go into more detail about anything. |
|
Quoted:
I have e mental hangup with BTC that makes me not want to buy any since I don't want to pay for an entire coin/unit. On the other hand, I don't want to get any if I can't have a whole bitcoin.  ... or maybe 10,000 satoshis? |
|
Quoted:
I knew ol' Josh would show up in here with his Ethereum butthurt. It's okay Josh, you can still make money. But instead you'll continuing holding on to those bags of LTC. LOL You want to stalk about a shitcoin now? Let's talk about LTC. Charlie Lee (you do know how he is, right?!) is one of the biggest pump 'n dumpers there is. The fact that he works for Coinbase and Coinbase actually listed that piece of crap is just shameful. Can you say conflict of interest? Quoted:
Quoted:
ETH is a shitcoin run by people who have no business anywhere near something like it. Why in the fuck coinbase bought in I cannot fathom. You want to stalk about a shitcoin now? Let's talk about LTC. Charlie Lee (you do know how he is, right?!) is one of the biggest pump 'n dumpers there is. The fact that he works for Coinbase and Coinbase actually listed that piece of crap is just shameful. Can you say conflict of interest? |
|
Quoted:
You bragged up in that thread from last year about having read the whitepapers, etc. You're really gonna come in here with that bullshit? Tells me you don't have the slightest clue about decentraliztion. And to be clear, this has nothing to do with Ethereum or other project for that matter. The only thing the devs can do for any of these projects, is write code, compile it, and offer it up to the community as binaries (or let the community compile it themselves -- it is open source, afterall). From there, it's up to the miners and users to choose to run said binaries, or not. Nobody can force anybody to do anything. So please, let's stop with the butthurt FUD. Quoted:
Quoted:
he simply forced a hard fork to get the money back -- retroactively -- You're really gonna come in here with that bullshit? Tells me you don't have the slightest clue about decentraliztion. And to be clear, this has nothing to do with Ethereum or other project for that matter. The only thing the devs can do for any of these projects, is write code, compile it, and offer it up to the community as binaries (or let the community compile it themselves -- it is open source, afterall). From there, it's up to the miners and users to choose to run said binaries, or not. Nobody can force anybody to do anything. So please, let's stop with the butthurt FUD. |
|
Quoted:
The Wikipedia article is a good place to start these days. Bitcoin isn't a piece of software like you normally think about it - it's a protocol. More than 50% of miners have to agree to any change made to the algorithm that creates new coins, else they will end up mining on a different "fork" of the blockchain. This consensus-based approach is most of what made Bitcoin special when it came out; it was the first large-scale deployment of a system that solved the Byzantine Generals' Problem, which in short means that there is no "central authority" in the Bitcoin network. Satoshi Nakamoto is the presumed pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin. No one is even sure if Satoshi is/was one person or a group of people. Even if he were to pop up today, he would have no more technical ability to change how Bitcoin works than I do, because of the novel consensus model above. As for the protocol itself, the best way to think of it is as a bunch of actors whose interests are balanced against each other: * people making transactions want to use the lowest possible fee; miners want to make as much money as possible from fees. There are a limited number of transactions per block, therefore those with the highest fees get included first. * a block is found whenever a miner finds a value for which the hash is a number less than a certain value. That value is reset every so often (as specified in the protocol), so as more people with more powerful computers join in mining, it gets just hard enough to find a block that one is only found every ten minutes (on average). Finally, the "blockchain" itself is a list of all transactions that have ever taken place on the network. It's impossible to hide a transaction, as the act of transacting makes it public. This makes it completely impossible for someone to deny or reverse a transaction. There are theoretical attacks that are possible against Bitcoin. One, that was once successful, is to create a large number of transactions for very small amounts (e.g. "dust"), thereby filling up the available space for transactions and bringing things to a halt. This was solved years ago by establishing a minimum transaction size, which makes it economically infeasible to do again. Another is a "51% attack", where an individual actor controls over 50% of the mining power on the network. This is a valid threat, but requires either a cartel of miners (which has thus far proven to be impossible to assemble) or something like the NSA deciding to throw billions - with a "b" - of dollars of computing power against the network to overwhelm it. The more miners there are in the world and the better their equipment is, the higher the barrier is to making this happen. What's more, the cost to execute a 51% attack is significantly more than could be gained by compromising the entire network. As for breaking the cryptography itself, first of all, if you are able to do so then you'd make a lot more money hacking banks; they use the same algorithms. Second, Bitcoin uses two unrelated hash algorithms to protect transactions (SHA256 and RIPEMD-160). Both of these would have to be broken before the Bitcoin network can be compromised. There is obviously more to it, and I've skimmed over some details in this description, but I tried to hit all the high points and counter the typical arguments from ignorance. Let me know if I can go into more detail about anything. Quoted:
Quoted:
@SimonPhoto Since you seem to be the most knowledgeable here of how it works, how would you explain the concept to someone who doesn't know anything about it? A coworker is extremely skeptical, and thinks the creator can rig the system. Can you dumb it down, because I don't know enough about the inner workings to explain it. Bitcoin isn't a piece of software like you normally think about it - it's a protocol. More than 50% of miners have to agree to any change made to the algorithm that creates new coins, else they will end up mining on a different "fork" of the blockchain. This consensus-based approach is most of what made Bitcoin special when it came out; it was the first large-scale deployment of a system that solved the Byzantine Generals' Problem, which in short means that there is no "central authority" in the Bitcoin network. Satoshi Nakamoto is the presumed pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin. No one is even sure if Satoshi is/was one person or a group of people. Even if he were to pop up today, he would have no more technical ability to change how Bitcoin works than I do, because of the novel consensus model above. As for the protocol itself, the best way to think of it is as a bunch of actors whose interests are balanced against each other: * people making transactions want to use the lowest possible fee; miners want to make as much money as possible from fees. There are a limited number of transactions per block, therefore those with the highest fees get included first. * a block is found whenever a miner finds a value for which the hash is a number less than a certain value. That value is reset every so often (as specified in the protocol), so as more people with more powerful computers join in mining, it gets just hard enough to find a block that one is only found every ten minutes (on average). Finally, the "blockchain" itself is a list of all transactions that have ever taken place on the network. It's impossible to hide a transaction, as the act of transacting makes it public. This makes it completely impossible for someone to deny or reverse a transaction. There are theoretical attacks that are possible against Bitcoin. One, that was once successful, is to create a large number of transactions for very small amounts (e.g. "dust"), thereby filling up the available space for transactions and bringing things to a halt. This was solved years ago by establishing a minimum transaction size, which makes it economically infeasible to do again. Another is a "51% attack", where an individual actor controls over 50% of the mining power on the network. This is a valid threat, but requires either a cartel of miners (which has thus far proven to be impossible to assemble) or something like the NSA deciding to throw billions - with a "b" - of dollars of computing power against the network to overwhelm it. The more miners there are in the world and the better their equipment is, the higher the barrier is to making this happen. What's more, the cost to execute a 51% attack is significantly more than could be gained by compromising the entire network. As for breaking the cryptography itself, first of all, if you are able to do so then you'd make a lot more money hacking banks; they use the same algorithms. Second, Bitcoin uses two unrelated hash algorithms to protect transactions (SHA256 and RIPEMD-160). Both of these would have to be broken before the Bitcoin network can be compromised. There is obviously more to it, and I've skimmed over some details in this description, but I tried to hit all the high points and counter the typical arguments from ignorance. Let me know if I can go into more detail about anything. |
|
Quoted:
After reading the wiki it doesn't sound like these things are safe anywhere at all. if a person were to buy say bitcoins what is the best way to keep them secure ? most general cpu users do not have the skills to fend off hackers who want their coins. |
|
Quoted:
After reading the wiki it doesn't sound like these things are safe anywhere at all. if a person were to buy say bitcoins what is the best way to keep them secure ? most general cpu users do not have the skills to fend off hackers who want their coins. > most general cpu users Out of curiosity, what do you think a CPU is? |
|
Quoted:
Assuming you have about what you would normally keep in PayPal, leave them in Coinbase. The next step in complexity would be a "Coinbase Vault", which is basically a plain 'ole paper wallet. > most general cpu users Out of curiosity, what do you think a CPU is? Quoted:
Quoted:
After reading the wiki it doesn't sound like these things are safe anywhere at all. if a person were to buy say bitcoins what is the best way to keep them secure ? most general cpu users do not have the skills to fend off hackers who want their coins. > most general cpu users Out of curiosity, what do you think a CPU is? |
|
Quoted:
I have literally never heard someone say CPU when referring to their computer as a whole. Quoted:
Quoted:
CPu is the processor but what most people mean when they say cpu is your computer. |
|
Quoted:
Is this the part we laugh at everyone who said "Too late to buy it now that it's at $1800"? 
Bitcoin will never match fiat Bitcoin will never pass silver Bitcoin will never hit $1000 Bitcoin will never pass gold Bitcoin will never hit $2000 >we are here I was tracking from early days, but made a mistake and didn't get in BTC till near 1k. Won't make that mistake with Ethereum. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah. But that's been going on since the beginning.
Bitcoin will never match fiat Bitcoin will never pass silver Bitcoin will never hit $1000 Bitcoin will never pass gold Bitcoin will never hit $2000 >we are here I was tracking from early days, but made a mistake and didn't get in BTC till near 1k. Won't make that mistake with Ethereum. |
|
Quoted:
Why exactly doesn't Coinbase work? There appears to be no customer support network whatsoever. I blew them off after three days. Edit to add: The above are the error messages at coinbase. If it is this hard to actually buy some, how am I possibly supposed to spend any? I just wanted to buy some jerky and have a few units of a potential future currency. @woodsie |
|
The solution is simple. Those who believe that bitcoin is going to increase in value should buy it.
Those who believe it is going to crash, should short it. Many things have been used as money, from shiny pebbles to cigarettes to huge stone coins. Even Czarist rubles were used in the Soviet Union for a while in preference to rubles issued by the Soviet gov't. (So much for the theory of the superiority of fiat). So, with all of the advantages that bitcoin offers over shiny pebbles, cigarettes, huge stone coins, and obsolete currency, why does any one think it won't survive? |
|
Quoted:
I gave up after several failed attempts to upload my ID ("blocked for 24 hours!") and several failed attempts to connect my credit card ("Your CCV number is wrong!"). There appears to be no customer support network whatsoever. I blew them off after three days. Edit to add: The above are the error messages at coinbase. If it is this hard to actually buy some, how am I possibly supposed to spend any? I just wanted to buy some jerky and have a few units of a potential future currency. @woodsie |
|
Quoted:
I gave up after several failed attempts to upload my ID ("blocked for 24 hours!") and several failed attempts to connect my credit card ("Your CCV number is wrong!"). There appears to be no customer support network whatsoever. I blew them off after three days. Edit to add: The above are the error messages at coinbase. If it is this hard to actually buy some, how am I possibly supposed to spend any? I just wanted to buy some jerky and have a few units of a potential future currency. @woodsie |
|
Quoted:
I have literally never heard someone say CPU when referring to their computer as a whole. Quoted:
Quoted:
CPu is the processor but what most people mean when they say cpu is your computer.
|
|
Quoted:
I gave up after several failed attempts to upload my ID ("blocked for 24 hours!") and several failed attempts to connect my credit card ("Your CCV number is wrong!"). There appears to be no customer support network whatsoever. I blew them off after three days. Edit to add: The above are the error messages at coinbase. If it is this hard to actually buy some, how am I possibly supposed to spend any? I just wanted to buy some jerky and have a few units of a potential future currency. @woodsie I understand the security concerns, but it IS a hassle to establish a method to get some cryptocurrency. |
|
Quoted:
Although I do have a functioning Coinbase acct, I agree that the process needs to get much more user-friendly before BTC will ever be commonplace. I understand the security concerns, but it IS a hassle to establish a method to get some cryptocurrency. Quoted:
Quoted:
I gave up after several failed attempts to upload my ID ("blocked for 24 hours!") and several failed attempts to connect my credit card ("Your CCV number is wrong!"). There appears to be no customer support network whatsoever. I blew them off after three days. Edit to add: The above are the error messages at coinbase. If it is this hard to actually buy some, how am I possibly supposed to spend any? I just wanted to buy some jerky and have a few units of a potential future currency. @woodsie I understand the security concerns, but it IS a hassle to establish a method to get some cryptocurrency. Yes, it can be a bit of a hassle for some of us. It took me a long time and a lot of study before I took the plunge. Now, I am glad that I did. |
 Failed To Load Title |
|
Quoted:
I bought 2 for the hell of it because of this thread. Paid $90 each. They're up to $174 now. Quoted:
Quoted:
This may be the only time that Arfcom has ever MADE me money, lol. Bought 1 ETH using coinbase and I'm actually up about $50.  Paid $90 each. They're up to $174 now. Kraken is apparently being swamped, it times out constantly. Coinbase seems to suck and says I exceeded attempts to add accounts on the first try. Gemini is now taking a week to approve my account. |
|
Quoted:
Where did you buy? Kraken is apparently being swamped, it times out constantly. Coinbase seems to suck and says I exceeded attempts to add accounts on the first try. Gemini is now taking a week to approve my account. I agree that establishing an account seems unnecessarily difficult. |
|
Quoted:
I would normally agree but I said those words when Eth hit 40.00USD.  This was the run-up for the new project partner announcement, I didn't expect too many to want to cash out ahead of the reveal. Now that it's been made public, no reason not to cash out some gains. |
|
Quoted:
I bought 2 for the hell of it because of this thread. Paid $90 each. They're up to $174 now. Quoted:
Quoted:
This may be the only time that Arfcom has ever MADE me money, lol. Bought 1 ETH using coinbase and I'm actually up about $50. Paid $90 each. They're up to $174 now. 
|
| I feel fairly confident that Rick would love crypto currency. |
