Emunie vs bitcoin exchange
He could just convert from bitcoins just before the loan is given out and back to bitcoins as soon as it is returned. This means that the price would be lower than otherwise by a proportion determined by the overall interest rate of the economy. Say, for example, that I wish to hold x freicoins. The present value of all the fees would be an infinite sum that decays according to the overall interest rate of the economy.
Now, if something is created with the express intention of providing an incentive to get rid of it, then it stands to reason that they will all the more not want to buy it in the first place. Thus, Freicoin is actually made to discourage investment in itself, which is the very thing that gives a currency value in the first place. Freicoin is an idea whose time will never come. Since it rebukes buyers, it resists ever having value.
Freicoin is thus not so much a scam but more an abortion. Its ideals are so refined that they eschew the merest chance of affecting the real world. Perhaps it could be taken as some sort of absurdist parody, which would be brilliant.
I hope that is true because otherwise it is just too sad. The overwhelming reason that Bitcoin is superior to its altcoin competitors is that it is overwhelmingly more popular. Some of its competitors might have worked as well or better had they been invented first, but given the history that led us here, none of them should be considered remotely competitive to Bitcoin.
If an altcoin were somehow to beat the odds and end up more popular than Bitcoin, then I would have to change my allegiance.
However, if that did happen, I think it would call into question the viability of cryptocurrencies in general. If they can rise and fall like fads, then it is hard to justify investing in any of them or believing that any has staying power.
In short, the altcoin phenomenon is the product of greed and bounded rationality. They deserve nothing but scorn, and anyone who wishes cryptocurrencies to improve the world should avoid them entirely. Last paragraph added to section on competition. The Mises Circle is proceeding ever more boldly and electronically. Right now, the block chain becomes more costly to store as it grows and there is no built-in means to compensate for that.
This paper shows that it is possible to split the functions of the block chain among three different data structures whose total size increases far more slowly. It is already possible for users but not miners to store shortened versions of the block chain, a feature which has been implemented in clients like MultiBit. However, the shortened block chain requires the client to make some assumptions about the validity of the full block chain which are not necessary with the Mini-Blockchain.
Gimme a place to tip you litecoin. You can use a block chain for something other than a medium of exchange, and in that case it would actually add value. I found the source of that quote and watched the video.
The problem of bitcoin mining being handled by a few centralized institutions is not one that can be solved by inventing a new algorithm. I tend to agree with you, and even to a large measure the conclusion of the original article.
Yet I think the article overlooked one of the key values of altcoins litecoin in particular , namely their role as a hedge against something nasty happening to bitcoin. For 3, while I agree that a centralized institution could attack litecoin in much the same way as it attacks bitcoin, I still think the existence of alternative POW functions makes the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem more resilient. Rather than being 10, times more efficient, they are perhaps 10x more efficient. This is a whitepaper for an algorithm.
It is not a whitepaper for Terracoin, Feathercoin, Litecoin, Chinacoin, Yacoin, or any of the others. What would the whitepaper say? Your point is meaningless. Right, even if you make use of something like network latency to create a lower-bound on the time it takes to calculate your proof-of-work algorithm, it can still be swung so that one person has an advantage.
One way to prevent work-based attacks is to try to make it uneconomical. Take something preferably expensive that most people already have and use that as part of the proof-of-work algorithm. So if we took something like a house something which is expensive but which most people already have , and somehow made it so that each house generated similar amounts of work as each other house, then this could make work-based attacks a much smaller issue. Most people have a house.
Of course, this is an absurd example. But the idea still holds — take something that is prohibitively expensive yet which most people already own and use it in your algorithm. Instead of a proof-of-work algorithm, use a proof-of-possession-of-something-prohibitively-uneconomical algorithm. This is still cheatable, of course I could buy 2 houses if I wanted , but much less-so than any proof-of-work. There is no logical reason for that I can see. The ideal is to minimize the largest proportion of power that any one party is capable of attaining within the Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin gets its security through being distributed, and when one party gains a significant amount of power, bad things become possible like double-spends. But if you allow an individual to achieve.
Although if Bitcoin implemented a few proof-of-stake blocks that might be nice—it would be an outlet for transactions that had to get through even if all the big mining operations were corrupted.
That would not be a change to the hash algorithm, but rather to the difficulty that would be required for different people. Of course Satoshi would always win those blocks. Second you very efficiently come to the point of disagreement over the origin of interest, is it monetary or is it time preference.
We believe it is a monetary phenomenon originating from liquidity which is likewise monetary in nature. But time preference is a universal or at least very broad human factor and should lead to similar interest rates in all money, the fact that interest rates do respond to the durability of money indicates the Austrian position is incorrect. It comes into existence step by step as soon as first a few and then successively more and more actors become aware of the fact that the market is faced with cash-induced changes in the money relation and consequently with a trend orientated in a definite direction.
Only when people begin to buy or to sell in order to take advantage of this trend, does the price premium come into existence. Different people have different time preference rates, so there is no reason to suppose if time preference were the only factor, interest rates would be uniform. Time preference in Arkansas might be much lower than in New Jersey for example because people have different value scales naturally.
Besides all that, there is no reason to suggest — though Austrians may be guilty of implying this — that time preference alone accounts for the market rate of interest. Mises explains that time preference accounts for originary interest — the foundational factor, the choosing of present versus future goods — but not the whole piece.
What Daniel and other Austrians would object to is the idea that a money can operate and trade on a loan market without its traders ascribing value to present goods or future goods. You cannot have an interest rate without time preference value included.
I think you are correct that there is an error in my analysis. I was thinking in terms of money that grows less valuable as time goes on, like in an inflationary scenario, but this is money that decays like a radioactive isotope. The correct answer is that the interest rate should actually stay the same.
The decay rate applied to Freicoins is an attempt to twitst my arm to make me spend rather than hoard them. In general, unless an altcoin is -vastly- superior to Bitcoin, it is a waste of time and attention. I think the biggest argument against altcoins, however, is that there really is nothing significantly wrong with Bitcoin. People like to exaggerate its tiny imperfections, and it is from these exaggerations that altcoins find their support.
Support that is, thus, exaggerated. I am not sure about your analysis of network valuation and hash rate. The valuation of the hashing activity is lke the price of the lock on a vault.
It does not tell you much about the value of the contents inside the vault. Cheap mining rigs are cheap both for the attacker and the defenders. The market cap has no relation to the cost of one of these attacks.
And his solution to these potential attacks, to just block the offending party, borders on stupidity. This invalidating the previously longest branch for the past 10 hours. This could mess up a lot of transactions and I think it would obviously be taken as malicious. Then we would just ignore that particular branch and mark the previous one as the correct one. Right now there is nothing built into the bitcoin software that would make such an action easy to do, but it might be something worthwhile to build in later on.
If, on the other hand, the attacker does not try to start a new branch and simply competes with everyone else on the longest branch according to the rules, then I would not consider this to be an attack at all and there would be no way to designate any block as a malicious one. The attacker might also try something more modest, like say he merely tries to invalidate the most recent block every now and then, this would require a more careful response, but it would also be a much less dangerous attack.
However, it would be possible to prove that at was used to double-spend, and this criteria could be used to prune certain branches, if necessary. About a year ago this was fairly common. But then the malicious miners would just make silly transactions.
There is also no reason that Litecoin would have any safeguard against this problem although PPCoin could be expected to behave better.
You are just changing the subject and groping for arguments. Thank you for demonstrating my accusations of altcoiners. My conclusion is that you have an irrational hatred of alt coins and are not open to their arguments. Nathan, I would say that the reasoning in this post is invalid because the bitcoin hashrate is increasing at an extraordinarily rapid exponential pace.
However, right now the bitcoin hash rate is almost doubling every two weeks! Not to mention the fact that it would not actually be possible to instantly produce such a huge quantity of ASICs and that the hash rate would be increasing exponentially as you tried to get them all.
However, I did not properly explain this issue in my article either, so I will update it to make it more clear. Thank you for your comments. I actually somewhat agree. I think the technology held by the major mining companies is far advanced than anything the government or some other nefarious interest can produce for now. Your argument amounts to the claim that it would be very difficult for you to do it and therefore it is not possible.
The black budget of the US government is in the hundreds of billions. They could do this in a matter of months. As valuable as the bitcoin mining ecosystem is now, it does not come into range of competing with government actors.
The size of the capital investment is determined by the profitability of mining, not the algorithm. A major predisposer of some kind of network effect would be lack of a fluid and simple transition between networks.
This is the major flaw in the network effect argument espoused by altcoin denialist or bitcoin hegemonist as they prefer to be called. The answer is not because facebook is better, or even the fact that facebook came first. Those reasons matter quite a bit, but the most important factor is because they are not interchangeable.
A more apt example to altcoins is the browsers wars of the last decade. They had a huge advantage, bundling their browser into the most common operating system on the planet. They lost their advantage because there was no downside to the alternative.
Millions if not billions of people said to themselves on day: The network effect will not exist with altcoins in any major capacity, except for artificial mental barriers created by people like the author of this article. Going between Litecoins and Bitcoins is as simple as trading a 20 dollar bill for singles.
So long as there is some advantage in using singles, people will continue to carry them, whether to use in a soda machine, or to tip a bartender. If altcoins can create value, however small, they will seamlessly fill any cracks in the bitcoin system. That said, thank you Nathan for providing an excellent illustration of motivated reasoning.
You should start a blog where you can publish your drivel. I have a 30 ghash bitcoin miner. Have you ever even attempted to mine, ever? Go back to the sandbox. That was the one thing you responded to? Just my dig an Pierre, for his typical mis-informed opinion? Your dig at Pierre is not a legitimate dig because it is nonsensical, and you have not shown that his opinion is misinformed in any way. So yes, his opinion is misinformed.
You both seem to assume away any problems related to mining as nothing more than a rounding error, likely based on your lack of mining experience. These problems will continue to exist and are not being solved by self-congratulatory post about how bitcoin is bulleproof and all competitors are charlatans.
Nothing that I wrote depends on running a mining rig. However, these problems are not going to be solved by making silly knock offs and then making ridiculous claims about them.
However, this in no way invalidates my point. There is inherently an inconvenience with using two media of exchange concurrently. In the long one, one has to overwhelm the other.
There are some rational reasons why to support an altcoin. The first one is that it allows experimenting with features not available with Bitcoin to the extent that they are too different to be easily testable on testnet either.
It could be something like namecoin, or a new scripting language operation. The second one is diversification of risk.
An altcoin could feature a technology that can survive problems that would disable Bitcoin. While in the long run, as you suggest, the improvements may be integrated into Bitcoin, there is still a period of uncertainty while an altcoin exists and the feature is not integrated into Bitcoin.
There also could be no apriori way of determining which of mutually exclusive features is better in the long run. There could also be path dependence, meaning that Bitcoin will be stuck in a globally suboptimal path, and inertia might prevent a timely migration to a superiour altcoin. Another important thing is to distinguish emergence, sustainability and market share. This is the same problem as in the debate regarding the regression theorem. An altcoin might emerge and even survive practically indefinitely without gaining significant market share.
Previously, transaction costs put the critical mass of new types of media of exchange relatively high, but with cryptocurrencies it appears to be significantly lower than previously anticipated even by me after I learned about Bitcoin. As long as an altcoin kind of works as a medium of exchange, ideological motivation seems to be sufficient for it to survive. It is not necessary that the macroeconomic effects are predicted by its proponents accurately as it is with freicoin.
In particular demurrage seems to have a large decentralised group of proponents that dates back to times before cryptocurrencies. I think I was overly cautious in my thesis regarding critical mass. Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments! As to your point about experimentation, I agree with you and should have stated this more clearly. It is good to create alternative block chains as experiments. However, they should be treated as experiments, not as scams.
Your point about uncertainty is well-taken. However, my problem is that altcoins are rarely treated as if that is their purpose. For example, suppose an alt-coin has a such a wonderful feature that it eventually gets incorporated into Bitcoin. Well then it really makes no sense to treat the altcoin as an investment because its success as an experiment will ultimately make it LESS competative against Bitcoin, once Bitcoin incorporates the feature.
As to the sustainablity of altcoins, I am not predicting that their prices must all go to zero. I am simply predicting that none will ever match Bitcoin in market share. You are quite right that an altcoin could continue running on the margins for quite a long time.
Once again, thanks for your comments and I will try to be more clear about some of the issues you mentioned in the future. Why would I have to pay the same merchant twice in 2 different currencies? That makes NO sense at all. But even these conversion trades are only the EXACT equivalent of trades to fiat, so there is no magic multiplication of transactions here either. EMunie non blockchain based, innovative crypto currency looking. Is bitcoin flawed or can replace FIAT.
Your own Pins on Pinterest. HuffPostThe decentralized aspect makes it incredibly difficult for fraud or censorship. This was posted by Fuserleer in one of the eMunie threads here of this forum. Launch is near or. It even comes with a debugger. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the. Emunie vs bitcoins mt gox bitcoin robbery games Vivelia Emunie vs bitcoins 32 bit ripple carry adder calculator Bitcoin trading forex robot, blueprint pattern, fibonacci, map out analysis, chris dunn jason.
Org How To Mine Bitcoins. Ripple Forum View topic Emunie sometimes that support has boiled over into verbal spats with people who have been openly hostile towards Dan mindlessly negative about emunie. And Ethereum s developers have always envisioned a time in which the cumbersome.
Sidechains are here Crypto NEM Forum That said if what they are trying to do is expand out bitcoin into a web of chains in a similar way that emunie is trying I m not sure if they can do it how long it ll take.
Ethereum s smart contracts aim to provide greater security than traditional contracts and bring down the associated costs. There are huge opportunities for Bitcoin especially to those living in remote , other crypto currencies in these regions due to the general lack of financial infrastructure available poor areas.
I would only be worried about stealing ideas if I wanted to capitalize on them, otherwise he should release the code for the good of humanity. EMunie le nouveau bitcoin. Without these machines those deployed by Streng s biggest rivals there would be no Ethereum.
EMunie core developer Dan Hughes performed two demonstrations to show spending with open close card wallets. Capital ConflictDoes he really have a bitcoin killer. How is eMunie different from Bitcoin and. A magnetic field is the magnetic effect of electric currents magnetic materials. Thanks 4 recommending these 2nd gen cryptocoins: Lawrence also has a background in finance as a former quant dev atF3Designs Bit location is opening the world of cryptocurrency business to banks, Six of.
All of the real pioneers of tech have been the same they don t care about money they do it to change the worldbut I m sure the bonus of getting very rich doesn t hurt. Emunie vs bitcoin wiki bitcoin blockchain explorer Dhs.
Devcoin is an ethically inspired project based on BitCoin created to help fund open source projects created by writers software developers. Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation contract between myself anyone else.
A shift in the thinking or perception of the crypto community. There are no middlemen no massive data silos to breach, no passwords no services tracking us around the internet.
Polychoric factor analysis in stata forex. The first couple posts I. Read 3 posts by David Mercer experiences on the world s Radix has the. SteemitIn this article widenot too far , wide to try bring some hope back into the hearts of. Its taxes are so high firms are moving to indiana a low tax state where workers are not forced to pay the demise of.
Hoarding will always happen it s natural for people to keep hold of anything that is of value, but we have tried to implement measures so that this shouldn t be as extreme as with BitCoin.
Zvnowman25 in cryptocurrency 3 months. Emunie vs bitcoin exchange; bitcoin exchange symbol. Radix cryptocurrency Decentralized futures markets are coming tocryptocryptocurrencybitcoinemunie. Altcoinspekulant Retweeted Radix emunie: I was a emunie Beta tester close to three years ago. InvestopediaSince its inception, there have been questions surrounding Bitcoin s ability to scale effectively. The smart contract applications are powered by ether, Ethereum s blockchain based cryptocurrency.
Any on-Demand service that requires instantaneous validation of nano-transactions at high volume, such as Pay-per-Second streaming, could potentially be implemented using IOTA in the near future. The technical whitepaper was published on June 5, the yearlong ICO was launched on June 26th, and on September 14th, we witnessed the release of the alpha version of EOS. IO software, Dawn v1. IO software introduces a new blockchain architecture designed to enable vertical and horizontal scaling of decentralized applications.
This is achieved by creating an operating system-like construct upon which applications can be built…. The resulting technology is a blockchain architecture that scales to millions of transactions per second, eliminates user fees, and allows for quick and easy deployment of decentralized applications.
Here are a couple graphics to better explain horizontal scaling versus vertical scaling, and what a blockchain based operating system entails:. IO developer will be supported by a web-based toolkit that provides a fully-serviced framework on which to build applications as distributed web-based systems coordinating over the blockchain.
Accounts, naming, permissioning, recovery, database storage, scheduling, authentication and inter-app asynchronous communication are all built in. IO software gives each account its own private database which can only be accessed by its own message handlers.
Message handling scripts can also send messages to other accounts. The combination of messages and automated message handlers is how EOS. IO defines smart contracts. Three months ago, EOS developers conducted a test run of a currency smart contract. It uses several simple API calls such as readMessage, load and store to fetch and store information from the blockchain. This particular contract will create 1 million coins and allocate them to the account simplecoin , then it will allow simplecoin to transfer these coins to other accounts which in turn can transfer them to others.
In addition, to the asynchronous smart contracts, and the operating system-like construct, it is worth mentioning the feeless structure and Delegated Proof of Stake consensus mechanism. Transactions are feeless because users and dApp developers are required to hold a certain number of tokens in order to interact with the network.
The number of tokens in your account impacts what you can do on the network. Together, all of the features of EOS make for an appealing, and exciting, project, whose promises are the stuff of dreams for dApp developers and investors. However, it is important to note that for now, the project is just an early prototype, without a fully released blockchain. Before you get too upset, I will say that I think the odds of this master plan coming into fruition are not that low, given the blockchain celebs working on the project and the backing of Block.
This project is actually a new one for me! I have never heard of Radix until I started looking into highly scalable blockchains for this article. I was surprised to discover that Radix, which was previously called eMunie, has a history dating back years, and is tied directly to the work of one developer, Dan Hughes. The first couple posts I encountered while scanning the Radix forum for basic information completely caught me off guard.
The system is secure providing nodes with a historical record of the generated temporal proofs are able to participate. Further, by providing the ability to execute arbitrary scripts, a fully expressive, Turing complete, state change system may be built on the new consensus paradigm. Nodes increment their local logical clock when witnessing an event which has not been seen previously.
Upon storing an event the node also stores its current logical clock value with it. As the paper progresses, several terms are introduced to help visualize the network. Tempo is the name of the ledger system used in Radix.
An instance of the Tempo is called a universe, and any event occurring within the universe is called an atom. The Tempo Ledger consists of a networked cluster of nodes, a global ledger database distributed across the nodes, and an algorithm for generating a cryptographically secure record of temporally ordered events.
Temporal Proofs provide a cheap, tamper resistant, solution to the above problem. A Temporal Proof being constructed and associated with the Atom, and a network wide broadcast of the Atom and its Temporal Proof. This information is used to prevent double spending and settle disputes on the ledger.