Of course you can hack electricity.Alexandra wrote:It is not possible because there is nothing to hack. It is like saying imagine if electricity was hacked.
Khmers do it every day
Post by spitthedog » Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:04 pm
Dude,starkmonster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:19 pmFind anything in finance that has ever performed like that:
Post by starkmonster » Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:25 pm
Post by spitthedog » Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:38 pm
Post by starkmonster » Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:43 pm
Did you even read my post? The main point was that crypto's are not assets in the traditional sense of the word, they are protocols. Having you understand them and their very abstract future implications, or having governments "recognise" them is not a precursor to entrepreneurs building higher level abstractions in the form of apps, programs and workflows and that innovation triggering a wave of mass consumer adoption by end users of said apps, programs and workflows.spitthedog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:38 pmIt's not a real asset. No genuine supply and demand.
No Governments support it.
Post by spitthedog » Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:03 am
You say alot whilst saying nothing.starkmonster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:43 pmDid you even read my post? The main point was that crypto's are not assets in the traditional sense of the word, they are protocols. Having you understand them and their very abstract future implications, or having governments "recognise" them is not a precursor to entrepreneurs building higher level abstractions in the form of apps, programs and workflows and that innovation triggering a wave of mass consumer adoption by end users of said apps, programs and workflows.spitthedog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:38 pmIt's not a real asset. No genuine supply and demand.
No Governments support it.
Just as the internet didn't need Joe Blogs to understand TCP/IP, HTTP or layer two standards like HTML/CSS/JavaScipt/XHR. The people that needed to understand them, understood them and got on with building value on top of those standards and protocols, the rest is history.
Post by Alexandra » Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:22 am
He would be kidnapped, tortured and blackmailed in an instant. There is too much money involved.spitthedog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:03 amIf Satoshi thinks the same as you, he might as well take the credit for this break through tech that will change the world.
May the real Satoshi please stand up.
Post by Nakamoto » Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:08 am
Computers running a node verify transactions. They don't recieve any rewards, except that they can verify their own transactions. You have a half understanding. Some other errors in your post which I won't address here.Alexandra wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:08 pmBitcoin mining and verification are two different things. There's a small reward for verification because it requires a small amount of computation power, but there are many transactions and every transaction needs verification, but verification and mining is not the same.
Bitcoin design takes Moore's law into consideration: computational power of computers increases every couple of years.
When a Bitcoin amount is transferred from one wallet to another the sender has to pay a transaction fee. The transaction fee is a voluntary amount with a minimum required value. The higher the transaction fee, the faster the transaction is verified by other Bitcoin connected peers. The transaction fee paid by the sender for the transaction is the "magical" reward.Orichá wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:24 amAt the beginning of Bitcoin miners who "verified a blockchain" received 50 free bitcoins... What is the difference between "verifying a blockchain" and "actually mining" a single Bitcoin? ...Nothing online that I have read makes this mushy nonsense clear... Where do these magical free bitcoin rewards for "blockchain verifying miners" who win by verifying a current block first come from?[/i] Halving has continued to reduce miner's rewards from 50 to 25 to 12.5 and now 6.25 free per block verification... I guess that someone has a fat purse of free bitcoins just waiting to disburse to those who verify blocks first
Not only did the blockchain grow in size. The amount of available peers in the Bitcoin network grew (expected) and the amount of transactions increased (expected). The system is designed taking these things in consideration.Orichá wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:24 amThe only possible mathematical explanation would be that, back at the beginning, the blockchain verification process took less time because the blockchain was "shorter"... and so Bitcoin blockchain transactions were being verified more quickly... But if it took one miner one blockchain verification to win an award of 50 free Bitcoins at the beginning, where did the free reward Bitcoins actually come from? If verifying a blockchain consists of verifying Bitcoin transactions, this still does not explain WHERE the new free Bitcoins COME FROM?
The new Bitcoins come from cracking encrypted blocks that were created at launch. Due to the limited number of blocks there is a deterministic limited number of coins that can be mined.
When Bitcoin was created a large amount of encrypted data was generated. Networked computers spend computational power to crack the cryptographic blocks. When a block is cracked the computers that partook end up with private keys for cryptographic blocks. The private keys are the currency, the amount of Bitcoin they receive for participating in "mining" the coin. The amount that they receive depends on the amount of computational power they spent to participate.
Like with any asymmetric cryptography there is a public and private key. The private key is used for signing transactions and the public key is used for verifying them.
The difference between mining and verification is that mining generates private keys and verification verifies transactions using public keys, like in other public key cryptography systems.
It is not contradictory and nonsensical. It uses private and public keys like any other asymmetric cryptographic system, for example SSL and PGP.Orichá wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:24 amNone of the articles below hint remotely at how it would have been possible to award the first miner to verify a blockchain with "50 free" Bitcoins at the beginning of the enterprise -- when there were many fewer Bitcoins -- as compared to now, when a miner can only get 6.25 "free bitcoin" for "verifying a block..." even as there are millions more whole Bitcoins now in circulation than at the beginning stage... Doesn't it all sound contradictory and nonsensical?
The first Bitcoin block, the genesis block, was minded by Satoshi. From the genesis block he generated the first 50 Bitcoins. He sent 10 Bitcoins to Hal Finney. The transaction was verified using Satoshi's public key.
Bitcoins are never spontaneously generated. That would defeat the whole purpose. It's a long chain of verifiable math. They never appear randomly from thin air. That would be a very broken system.
In order to verify a Bitcoin transaction you must run a Bitcoin node, a computer with a Bitcoin software. If you are using a broker then you are not running a Bitcoin client and you will never verify any transactions and you will never receive a reward for doing so. The broker is your Bitcoin node and they're not in the business of giving you free money.
If you do run a Bitcoin client and you happen to verify a transaction the rewarding Bitcoins are transferred to your wallet.
No, the sender pays a transaction fee.
Yes, they do. They are cryptographically signed and verified.
By downloading a Bitcoin client and transferring a Bitcoin to your wallet. A Bitcoin is a piece of text. It's a variable for a large equation.
Post by Nakamoto » Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:13 am
Yes, the M1 money supplystarkmonster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:19 pmFind anything in finance that has ever performed like that:
Post by Gunman » Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:08 am
Post by kinard » Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:17 am
Gunman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:08 am...worldwide governments, will either regulate crypto out of existence or regulate cryptos into existence.
Post by starkmonster » Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:04 pm
Okay here is an example from HMLR (Her Majesties Land Registry UK) of a higher level abstraction. I was at a presentation in London in 2019 where they demonstrated a working prototype, of a complete property transfer flow happening completely on-chain with smart contracts removing the need for lawyers, escrow accounts, registration handling, manual tax payment, manual stamp duty payment and traditional transfer contracts.spitthedog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:03 amI'll condense it down abit.
"Abstract future and building higher level abstractions"
So alot of ideas without facts then??
That seems similar to what i've been saying all along dude.
Post by chilliwilli » Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:43 pm
Post by Orichá » Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:32 pm
Where have we seen talk like this before, Mr. McAfee?chilliwilli wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:43 pmThank me later...
$BUND
it’s an NTF
buy ETH or BTC
swap to BUND at app.uniswap.org
Current MC is $4m
Could easily go 100x