- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: John Donahoe speaks on Bitcoin
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:33 pm to joshnorris14
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:33 pm to joshnorris14
So do you have any original thought to add about bitcoins? Or are you still a sheep?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:35 pm to LSURussian
No you don't, I do not own the information.
If you do happen to post my number in your signature, I will follow your lead.
If you do happen to post my number in your signature, I will follow your lead.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:37 pm to joshnorris14
quote:It's not a matter of who owns the information. It's a matter of common courtesy.
No you don't, I do not own the information.
quote:You can go ahead and put your phone number in your siq quote without waiting for me to do so. I don't mind.
If you do happen to post my number in your signature, I will follow your lead.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:40 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
So do you have any original thought to add about bitcoins? Or are you still a sheep?
I'm doing research on the development of the blockchain to deal with issues such as innovation and implementation of features without fragmentation, combating centralization risks that come along with things such as increased block sizes, and analyzing potential problems in implementation of some proposed fundamental changes in the protocol.
I'd say I have some deal of original thought.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It's not a matter of who owns the information. It's a matter of common courtesy.
Trolling and courtesy do not go together.
quote:
You can go ahead and put your phone number in your siq quote without waiting for me to do so. I don't mind.
I have no interest in doing that.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:43 pm to joshnorris14
quote:I've noticed that about you.
Trolling and courtesy do not go together.
quote:Then why did you bring it up?
I have no interest in doing that.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:44 pm to joshnorris14
So given your great deal of original thought, why not address those problems here rather than leave some shitty link.
For example, "implementation of features without fragmentation" as a start.
For example, "implementation of features without fragmentation" as a start.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:45 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Then why did you bring it up?
I only brought it up as a retaliation.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:47 pm to joshnorris14
quote:And this coming from a guy who argued for almost two days that inflation results from a decrease in money supply relative to the amount of goods available and deflation results from an increase in money supply relative to the amount of goods available before he finally admitted he had it backwards???
I'm doing research on the development of the blockchain to deal with issues such as innovation and implementation of features without fragmentation, combating centralization risks that come along with things such as increased block sizes, and analyzing potential problems in implementation of some proposed fundamental changes in the protocol.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:48 pm to JayDeerTay84
Because nobody here has shown a particular interest in those topics. Ebay accepting bitcoin would be much more news worthy than integrating bitcoin onto Ethereum's platform, or implementing a two-way peg to alternative chains with different feature sets (such as micropayments) to allow for rapid development without putting the core protocol in a considerable amount of danger. I don't blame anyone for not being interested in the topics.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:48 pm to LSURussian
quote:
And this coming from a guy who argued for almost two days that inflation results from a decrease in money supply relative to the amount of goods available and deflation results from an increase in money supply relative to the amount of goods available before he finally admitted he had it backwards???
I was probably around 17 at the time and confused the terms, is this really that big of a deal?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:49 pm to joshnorris14
quote:How would YOU posting YOUR phone number as your sig quote be retaliation? And retaliation to whom?
I only brought it up as a retaliation.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:50 pm to LSURussian
quote:
How would YOU posting YOUR phone number as your sig quote be retaliation? And retaliation to whom?
I was talking about posting your number.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:51 pm to joshnorris14
quote:It is a good indication of your lack of understanding of macro economics. I seriously doubt you've filled in the blanks since then.....
I was probably around 17 at the time and confused the terms, is this really that big of a deal?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:51 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
to allow for rapid development without putting the core protocol in a considerable amount of danger
I thought the logic behind the protocol was sound and as such, no such flaws existed. AKA free from danger.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:53 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
You can go ahead and put your phone number in your siq quote without waiting for me to do so. I don't mind.
quote:Maybe before you reform the world's economies based on bitcoin and bring down governments with it, you should work on your reading comprehension skills.....
I was talking about posting your number.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 6:55 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
to allow for rapid development without putting the core protocol in a considerable amount of danger
I thought the logic behind the protocol was sound and as such, no such flaws existed. AKA free from danger.
SHOTS FIRED!!! ANARCHIST DOWN!!!
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:00 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
I thought the logic behind the protocol was sound and as such, no such flaws existed. AKA free from danger.
The bitcoin protocol is still in development. And it was never meant to be free from danger.
Adam Back developed a proof of work system in which information could be verified without actually knowing what that information was with HashCash. Satoshi came up with a way to eliminate a central point of failure by crowdsourcing the security in return for a block reward. That was his great innovation, but from the very beginning it was understood that the network and information were only secure if a miner didn't have access to > 50% of the total hashing power of the network.
The core logic behind the protocol was trustlessness, but that breaks down if someone had control of the hashing power of the network. At this point, I don't think it is feasible to access that much power, and even if it were, it would be incredibly counter productive.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:01 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Maybe before you reform the world's economies based on bitcoin and bring down governments with it, you should work on your reading comprehension skills.....
I just glanced over the post, I'm trying to multi-task but I've become sidetracked.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:04 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
The bitcoin protocol is still in development. And it was never meant to be free from danger.
You are either lying now, or have lied in the past about this...
quote:
Adam Back developed a proof of work system in which information could be verified without actually knowing what that information was with HashCash. Satoshi came up with a way to eliminate a central point of failure by crowdsourcing the security in return for a block reward. That was his great innovation, but from the very beginning it was understood that the network and information were only secure if a miner didn't have access to > 50% of the total hashing power of the network.
Well now you are talking about a different topic. So which issue would you like to address?
quote:
The core logic behind the protocol was trustlessness, but that breaks down if someone had control of the hashing power of the network. At this point, I don't think it is feasible to access that much power, and even if it were, it would be incredibly counter productive.
Again, two separate issues.
Either your protocol is legit or its not. Its OK to say its not, but be honest. Bitcoin was touted as untouchable by you and Wiki...
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 7:06 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News