100% Complete Bitcoin Price History Graph + Related Events
100% Complete Bitcoin Price History Graph + Related Events
Bitcoin Open High Low - zeon energy lanka (pvt) ltd
Bitcoin is "Worse is Better" | Hacker News
Gwern Branwen is creating Essays on gwern.net | Patreon
The Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin and its mysterious - gwern
Pragmatists, Romantics, Analysts, and Fundamentalists: a fun heuristic for classifying personalities
What are you favourite ways of categorising personality types? Joke: Big 5 Broke: MBTI Woke: Zodiac Sign Bespoke:Which Veggietales Character Are You? In all seriousness, I love finding interesting new ways of categorising personalities. I've taken MBTIs, Big 5s, Personality Disorder tests, and Hogwarts House quizzes more times than I can count. Even if a given schema isn't scientifically robust, it can serve as a useful shorthand among a knowing audience - you can communicate a lot by saying things like "he's a typical fucking Aries" or "he thinks he's an Aragorn but he's actually a Boromir". I'd love to hear what schemata others have come up with, but one useful little framework I've devised and found surprisingly adaptable is to carve up people into Pragmatists, Romantics, Analysts, and Fundamentalists. Pragmatists are relatively unreflective and just want to get on with life. Romantics are driven by emotion and beauty. Analysts are self-conscious optimisers who value truth and knowledge. And fundamentalists operate on the basis of axiomatic principles that structure everything else they do. Pragmatists think the other types are out to lunch. Romantics think the other types are boring and cold. Analysts think the other types are stupid and unreflective. And fundamentalists - insofar as they understand the other types at all - think of them as benighted and deprived of some basic insight. I don't think this framework is particularly useful in classifying people tout court, but it's quite intuitive to apply to particular domains. Consider Christianity, for example. A Pragmatist Christian goes to Church because that's what they've always done and the Minister gives funny sermons and it's a good opportunity to chat about what's happening in the community. A Romantic Christian is a William Blake type - they're moved to tears every time they listen to Allegri's Misere, and love Kierkegaard. They've probably been to Taizé. Analyst Christians are impressed by the Cosmological Argument, have a signed copy of the Summa Theologica, and privately worry a lot about the problem of evil. Finally, a Fundamentalist Christian cleaves to a few basic principles - maybe that's biblical literalism, but it could equally be a single moment of personal revelation they had that they've subsequently built their life around. Science is another nice example. The Pragmatic Scientist would like to finish the paper they're working on, get a publication in Nature, and secure a juicy grant. The Romantic Scientist gazes at the stars at night feeling a mix of terror and wonder. They think about the Fermi paradox ten times a day. They probably love Carl Sagan. The Analyst Scientist likes metanalyses, worries about the replication crisis, and complains about the statistical incompetence of their peers. The Fundamentalist Scientist is in a ten year back-and-forth publication battle with a rival at Stanford who they consider to be a fucking idiot who doesn't grasp the obvious truth of Modified Newtonian Dynamics. They are possibly a fan of Richard Dawkins. I also see a nice mix of these personality types in the Rationalist community. Probably the Pragmatists Rationalists are the least well represented, but they're around. They started reading Less Wrong after they started working for an algorithmic trading fund and it was recommended to them by a coworker. They're always on the lookout for inadequate equilibria they can exploit. They bought BitCoin early and used the money to fund their EVE Online Corp. They frequently makes comments like "Well if you really believe that, you could make a bunch of money on PredictIt right now." They use Modafinil three times a week and can't understand everyone doesn't do the same. Naturally, they're one-boxers. The Romantic Rationalists, by contrast, probably came into the movement after reading Kurzweil and Bostrom. They worry a lot about consciousness and frequently flirt with panpsychism. They love Scott Alexander and CS Lewis and have read Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality seven times. They sometimes worry that they've given themselves HPPD from microdosing but aren't sure if things always looked that way (or maybe it's just their new polyphasic sleep schedule?). The Analyst Rationalists got into Rationalism via reading u/gwern or maybe listening to Rationally Speaking. They find Newcomb's problem deeply disturbing but find One Boxers to be baffling and annoying. They try not to think about Roko's Basilisk (sorry for mentioning it). They take 2mg of melatonin to sleep at night but worry that they're becoming dependent. They see the obvious appeal of Mealsquares. They use unnecessary formalism at every opportunity. They actually read the fucking article you just posted. Finally, Fundamentalist Rationalists probably came across Less Wrong at a delicate age and were immediately convinced by the obvious and irrefutable truth of Timeless Decision Theory, HBD, antinatalism, or Bayesianism. They are up to 20g of Phenibut a day but have no intention of tapering. They either love or despise Nicholas Nassim Taleb. They once broke up with their girlfriend because she was a Frequentist. They have probably been banned from the Culture War Thread at least once.
23MB set of 235,668 reviews from 6 online black markets
Hi! I am the owner of Kilos, a search engine that indexes listings, vendors, reviews, and forum posts from online black markets. I am publishing some of the data I have scraped to see if anyone can reach any interesting conclusions from playing with it. I have quite a bit more data, which I will be posting in the coming days. Right now I have...
Currently indexing 534,767 forum posts, 65,741 listings, 2,726 vendors, and 235,668 reviews from 6 markets and 6 forums.
You need Tor to download the dataset. Once you have the Tor browser bundle installed, you can find the data set here: http://lolwuc3342535625.onion/2020-01-13-reviews.csv . If someone could mirror this on a clearnet hosting site, I would appreciate that. I use Tor for everything and most file hosting websites will not allow me to upload over Tor. Edit: gwern has mirrored the data for me and you can now get it without Tor here. Thanks gwern! The data is in the format
Site, vendor, and comment are strings. Site and vendor are both alphanumeric, while comment may have punctuation and whatnot. Line breaks are explicit "\n" in the comment field, and the comment field has quotation marks around it to make it easier to sort through. All the data uses Latin characters only, no unicode. Timestamp is an integer indicating the number of seconds since the Unix epoch. Score is 1 for positive review, 0 for neutral review, and -1 for negative review. Value_btc is the bitcoin value of the product being reviewed, calculated at the time of the review. There are some slight problems with the data set as a result of the pain that is scraping these marketplaces. All reviews from Cryptonia market have their timestamp as 0 because I forgot to decode the dates listed and just used 0 as a placeholder. Cryptonia reviews' score variable is unreliable, as I accidentally rewrote all scores to 0 on the production database. To correct for this, I rewrote the scores to match a sentiment analysis of the review text, but this is not a perfect solution, as some reviews are classified incorrectly. E.g. "this shit is the bomb!" might be classified negatively despite context telling us that this is a positive review. There are a decent number of duplicates, some of which are proper (e.g. "Thanks" as a review appears many many times) and some of which are improper (detailed reviews being indexed multiple times by mistake). Anyway if you can make any interesting inferences from this data, let me know! I am always looking to improve Kilos' display of datas. Right now, I am working on using polynomial regression to detect when vendors have padded their reviews with fake positives to improve their listing in search results. I would appreciate help with this if anyone can offer it.
The evolution of Distributed Ledger Technologies - Part 1
Understanding really something means that you need to look at how it was created and how it has evolved. Blockchain technology was not created out of nowhere or overnight from an anonymous crazy inventor called Satoshi Nakamoto, as some may believe. It was the outcome of collective human innovation through a very strange set of circumstances that would set the setting stone for a new decentralized movement and a new and better concept of money. To grasp ahold of the origin of Bitcoin and the Distributed Ledger Technologies, or plainly laid out “Blockchain” in modern online literature, one has to look at the history and the combined influence of 4 elements, Cryptography, Open Source Software, Peer to Peer Sharing Networks, Crypto-Economics.
Part 1 - Introduction to Cryptography
Cryptography is about solving the problem of transmitting information fast, securely and covertly to an audience. The problem arose as new technology increased the potential of communication and the danger from information being stolen. In the 1930s and during the World War II encryption and cryptography boomed as a result of military research and development, that would provide a competitive advantage and eventually greatly assist by breaking almost every German and Japanese code. Formal information security and electronic surveillance organizations would then be born and continue to this day, such as the NSA. Military Enigma machine, model \"Enigma I\", used during the late 1930s and during the war; displayed at Museo scienza e tecnologia Milano, Italy. Pioneering cryptographers were James Ellis and Clifford Cocks with their public key encryption idea. An encrypted message would contain the key that would enable unlocking the encryption, however the idea was not at that point feasible as it entailed a public communications network such as the internet as a foundation. These systems were not yet available to the public in the 1970s. Additionally, David Chaum, was the first to propose cryptocurrency in 1983, in a paper called “Numbers can be a better form of cash than paper” as well as other ideas like untraceable electronic mail, digital signatures and digital secret identities.
The Rise of the Cypherpunks
With the emergence of the internet, by the 1990s’ a new movement called Cypherpunks was born. These people wanted to use the encryption tools developed by the military-industrial complex to protect individuals and their privacy. In early 1991, a U.S. Senate legislation had a proposal that would force electronic communications service providers to hand over individuals’ private messages. A little known programmer called Phil Zimmerman decided to develop a tool that would help individuals freely communicate on the internet. Concerned that the American government would soon require service providers to turn over its users’ communications, Phil developed the free software known as Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP, so that individuals could encrypt the contents of their own messages, texts and files. PGP quickly became the world’s most popular email-encryption software and one of the world’s first examples of public key encryption to gain any kind of widespread adoption. It was notably used by Edward Snowden to secretly transfer classified documents from the NSA to journalist Glenn Greenwald in 2012. NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden in a still image taken from video during an interview. In late 1992, Eric Hughes, Tim May and John Gilmore invited twenty of their closest friends to an informal meeting to discuss programming and cryptographic issues. This meeting was then held monthly at John Gilmore’s company, Cygnus Solutions and as the group grew they decided to setup a mailing list to reach other people elsewhere and the Cypherpunks were already growing in numbers. The ideas and concepts shared in this mailing list varied from cryptography, mathematics, computer science and political as well as philosophical debates, with privacy being one of the main founding principles.
“Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.”
Early attempts of anonymous transaction systems that would introduce game theory and incentivised behaviour, was the Hashcash in 1997, by Dr. Adam Back, which was a system to prove that some computational power was spent to create a stamp in the header of an email, acting as an anti-spam mechanism, a concept that might sound familiar to the proof of Work use in Bitcoin. In 1998, Wei Dai published his proposal for B-Money, which included two methods of maintaining transaction data, one in which all participants hold a separate database or ledger and a second in which a specific group only holds the database and are incentivized to act honestly as they have deposited their own money into a special account and stand to lose it by acting dishonestly, also known as the “Proof of Stake” method. Ethereum is one of the cryptocurrencies considering to move to this method of transaction verification since it provides efficiency benefits. In 2004, Hal Finney created the Reusable Proofs of Work based on the principles of Hashcash, which were unique cryptographic tokens you could only spend once, but were limited to validation and protection against double spending from a central server. In 2005 Nick Szabo gave his own proposal for BitGold, a system which units would be valued differently based upon the amount of computational work performed to create them. https://preview.redd.it/kx6psm0vfgj11.jpg?width=1067&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d72dc76341c76dc671a0f6e46f9a98acc6d0179 Finally, in 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto, a pseudonym for a still-unidentified individual or individuals, published the bitcoin whitepaper, citing both hashcash and b-money, addressing many of the problems that the earlier developers had faced, including double spending. The bitcoin white paper attracted a lot of criticism from sceptics, but Satoshi moved on despite the critics and mined the genesis block of Bitcoin on 3rd of January 2009. See you in the nextarticle! I think that’s enough condensed knowledge for one article. In the following article we’ll look at Open Source Software and study its influence in the development of Blockchain Technologies.
Moronic Monday - It's your weekly stupid questions thread. Please upvote for visibility. I receive no karma for this post.
Hey /SilkRoad , it is time for Moronic Monday! Post your question - stupid or otherwise - here to get an answer. Anyone can post a question and the community as a whole is invited and encouraged to provide an answer. Many questions get submitted late each week that don't get a lot of action, so if your question didn't get answered before, feel free to post it again. I do ask that you refrain from abusing noobs in this thread. Feel free to link to guides, wikis, forums, other subreddits (particularly /bitcoin and /drugs [though many on the Bitcoin subreddit don't take real kindly to SR]), or the FAQ, though. The Chinese scammer is still doing his thing here. They'll be using a rotating array of URL shorteners to evade reddit's spam filters. This scam's site is called emocoe (also bitswing and bitcoinestore [not to be confused with the legitimate bitcoinstore]), and they are doing the same thing: claiming to offer bitcoin for far under market value in exchange for Paypal or debit or whatever. No legitimate exchange does this. Please report it when you see it. Your reports make deleting it much easier, and train reddit's spam filter to start catching the URL shorteners. iam_Astrid is joining us as a mod in order to assist with CSS stuff. Useful resources: http://erowid.org http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page reddit.com/Drugs reddit.com/askdrugs reddit.com/SilkRoadDeals reddit.com/nootropics http://gwern.net The sidebar ----- Fire away!
Moronic Monday - It's your weekly stupid questions thread. Please upvote for visibility. I receive no karma for this post.
Hey /SilkRoad , it is time for Moronic Monday! Post your question - stupid or otherwise - here to get an answer. Anyone can post a question and the community as a whole is invited and encouraged to provide an answer. Many questions get submitted late each week that don't get a lot of action, so if your question didn't get answered before, feel free to post it again. I do ask that you refrain from abusing noobs in this thread. Feel free to link to guides, wikis, forums, other subreddits (particularly /bitcoin and /drugs [though many on the Bitcoin subreddit don't take real kindly to SR]), or the FAQ, though. The Chinese scammer is still doing his thing here, and has kicked it into high gear. They'll be using a rotating array of URL shorteners to evade reddit's spam filters. This scam's site is called emocoe, and they are doing the same thing: claiming to offer bitcoin for far under market value in exchange for Paypal or debit or whatever. No legitimate exchange does this. Please report it when you see it. Your reports make deleting it much easier, and train reddit's spam filter to start catching the URL shorteners. The official forums appear to be back up after a day of spottiness and downtime. SpydaKrazy has left us to recover from a benzodiazepine issue. I don't think they'll be back. 8'| Useful resources: http://erowid.org http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page reddit.com/Drugs reddit.com/SilkRoadDeals reddit.com/nootropics http://gwern.net The sidebar ----- Fire away!
Nakamoto Dundee and Dave Kleiman: what evidence is there that Kleiman knew Wright or was into Bitcoin, other than evidence provided by Wright or the 2015 "leaker"?
I'm currently stuck on trying to make any fucking sense of the story of Professor Dr Dr Craig Wright. I have a zillion documents from 2015-2016 here, with Nik Cubrilovic's superlative evidence compilation as my main guide. Currently I have a timeline something like:
Wright tries to start a Bitcoin Bank
It founders on regulation (the Australian Tax Office weren't happy)
He tells the ATO in 2013/2014 that he and Dave Kleiman had invented Bitcoin and had a stash of 1.1 million BTC (the size of the Satoshi stash)
Fakes up data, like the blog posts made in 2013 and backdated to 2008
He pisses off people a lot (he notes in the epic LRB piece "I'm an arsehole"), some time in late 2015 a disgruntled employee or similar (unless it was Wright himself, who knows why) contacts gwern and Gawker with a stash of evidence
Wired and Gawker run stories
Wired runs a story a few days later that Wright probably is faking it
ATO raids him over stuff back to 2014, he's skipped the country hours before
various shenanigans where his small lie grows into a bigger one
he comes forth in April 2016 saying "I am Satoshi"
he signs with a fake key in May 2016, he's known as a likely fraud thereafter.
(any corrections to this are most valued) (btw, that LRB piece is actually awesome. He never calls Wright a "fraud" himself, but he really doesn't have to. It's worth getting to the end of the 34,000 words.) The only third-party backing for this is this May 2016 post by Ian Grigg, stating outright that "Satoshi" was a team of Wright and Kleiman (and maybe others), per Grigg's personal knowledge. Wright was a fan of Grigg's "triple ledger accounting" paper that may be one of the precursors to Satoshi's blockchain. Grigg is a bit weird (he's got lots of crank "free banking" advocacy on his site) but he's presently gainfully employed by the R3 blockchain consortium, so presumably knows a bit of this stuff technically. The thing is: was there ever any pre-2013 evidence of Kleiman (a) knowing Wright (b) being into Bitcoin? I mean evidence that didn't come via Wright or his "leaker". Kleiman was actually a noteworthy person, slightly famous in computer security and forensics, author of a few books; his Wikipedia article was created in 2006. But I'd never heard of him before Nakamoto Dundee and I bet you hadn't either.
Moronic Monday - It's your weekly stupid questions thread. Please upvote for visibility. I receive no karma for this post.
ALL CREDIT TO u/RacistConspiracy FOR THE BELOW INFORMATION: Hey /SilkRoad , it is time for Moronic Monday! Post your question - stupid or otherwise - here to get an answer. Anyone can post a question and the community as a whole is invited and encouraged to provide an answer. Many questions get submitted late each week that don't get a lot of action, so if your question didn't get answered before, feel free to post it again. I do ask that you refrain from abusing noobs in this thread. Feel free to link to guides, wikis, forums, other subreddits (particularly /bitcoin and /drugs [though many on the Bitcoin subreddit don't take real kindly to SR]), or the FAQ, though. The Chinese scammer is still doing his thing here. They'll be using a rotating array of URL shorteners to evade reddit's spam filters. This scam's site is called emocoe (also bitswing and bitcoinestore [not to be confused with the legitimate bitcoinstore]), and they are doing the same thing: claiming to offer bitcoin for far under market value in exchange for Paypal or debit or whatever. No legitimate exchange does this. Please report it when you see it. Your reports make deleting it much easier, and train reddit's spam filter to start catching the URL shorteners. iam_Astrid  is joining us as a mod in order to assist with CSS stuff. Useful resources: http://erowid.org http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page reddit.com/Drugs reddit.com/askdrugs reddit.com/SilkRoadDeals reddit.com/nootropics http://gwern.net The sidebar ----- Fire away!
Bitcoin may very well have sparked a crypto revolution, but can it be the last coin standing?
I think the genius of Bitcoin comes from the fact that the creator(s) picked clever technologies and good ideas in a wide variety of disciplines and brought them together in a system that just works, and released it at the right time. However in each discipline the individual choices aren't exactly optimal, and a lot of them can be questioned:
The whole idea relies on its crypto algorithms to be solid. But can the network really adapt to new algos if needed?
Is a fixed Bitcoin supply the best approach? There is a lot of debate among the different economist schools of thought about such things.
Are the confirmation times, block reward, halving times, difficulty retarget and other parameters ideal?
Will the network ever be able to scale for wide-scale adoption, realistically speaking?
Was it fair (and smart) to give so much edge to early adopters? Wouldn't it have been smarter, for price stability and fairness's sake to give decaying edge to early miners?
I'm not criticizing Bitcoin, but I am worried that now that the foundations are laid, only one of the three scenarios will become true:
Bitcoin is able to become perfect in each individual discipline, with a dev team becoming large and efficient enough to resolve problems quick enough as they come
Some university or organization takes the main principles and makes a new coin that is optimal in each of its aspect, making it a better choice for the long term
Banks end up soaking up the advantages of Bitcoin in its existing products, and makes crypto irrelevant as a means for payment or even as a store of value
I'm full-on bullish on crypto, but I'd love to be convinced that Bitcoin is a good candidate to win the adoption race. What do you guys think? EDIT: Removed the 21M Bitcoin argument. My point is that having a finite supply could be debated, obviously not the value of that limit. Also: I've been asking myself these questions for a while now, and stumbled upon this article recently. It makes a lot of very valid points and raises a lot of questions for debate. If you're long-term Bitcoin bullish, you should really read it.
I’m posting this as an incomplete and rather disorganized draft of an essay I’m working on. I'll will publish a longer and complete post later on (I think I'm only about 1/3 of the way through it), but I figured I share what I already have: There’s an ethos to Bitcoin that many people find particularly hard to grasp. In this essay, I’m will attempt to take some of the more technical problems in Bitcoin and distill them into something that can be understood by a wider audience, but first I feel it’s necessary to provide some historical background about the realm of digital/electronic cash. I'll present a few hours of light reading (not required to understand the essay, but important nonetheless):
We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.
This was written in 1993, a full 15 years before Bitcoin was conceived. So why did it take so long? Because there were other electronic money systems that were attempted and failed. In order to understand Bitcoin, I believe it's important to understand the context of these past failures. David Chaum came up with a radical idea somewhere around 1982: “Blind signatures for untraceable payments”. In the 6 page paper, he laid out an electronic cash system which provided the “inability of third parties to determine the payee, time, or amount of payments made by an individual.” In order to accomplish this, he came up with a beautiful system called a “blind signature.” It was secure, but it had a big non-cryptographic fatal flaw: It required a trusted third party (bank) in order to function. The third party could refuse to make or take payments and do all sorts of other nastiness. That didn't matter to Chaum because his company would be the bank, and he would not violate those ideals. Using these concepts he founded a company called DigiCash (here is the post-mortem): http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1101/6411390a.html Not to be deterred by prior failure another digital currency company was started around 1998: E-gold. This was met with significantly more success in adoption. My theory is that E-Gold succeeded where DigiCash failed because E-gold provided a tangible good (gold) as a backing. It’s hard for a consumer to accept data as money if they have little knowledge of what the past and current money systems are based on. Ultimately, E-gold met a different failure mode: the State (see wiki article for details). I strongly believe that had DigiCash survived to E-gold’s level of adoption, it would have either been co-opted or obliterated by this mechanism as well. There are a number of other examples of failures which have occurred in “E-Cash” world: Beenz, Liberty Reserve, PayPal, etc. There’s a whole other story about PayPal, but for brevity we’ll just say it “co-opted” rather than “obliterated.” These numerous failures were a bit of an ideological crisis for the Cypherpunks. Many were (and many still are) of the opinion that a viable e-cash could not be created without ending in two failure modes: Co-opted (and thus neutered) by existing government/corporate power structures or destroyed because it threatened the aforementioned structures. This is something that’s played out in the physical world as well (see Liberty Dollar). There were a couple good technical reasons why it was thought impossible, not the least of which was the Byzantine General’s Problem (further reading here and here). There were engineered answers to the problem, but none were thought to be resilient enough to withstand an open network with dishonest (and even irrationally evil) participants. Most knew that centralized solutions would fail because they had already been tried (even when created by their own). There were a few solutions that were close to solving the problem but missed the mark (RPOW), were never implemented (bit-gold and b-money), or weren’t intended to be a general solution (hashcash). Enter Bitcoin. On October 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto made a post on the Cryptography mail list presenting a copy of his paper: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf and the abstract. I’ll post the very first public criticism on the list (emphasis mine):
We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size. For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to bittorrent. To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
Reasonably, Satoshi replies with this:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
I want to point something out about this conversation: Satoshi does not dispute James Donald’s point that a fully deployed network at the time of publication would not be possible… he simply states that in the future it will be possible because of optimizations and technological improvements. I believe that neither are right, but Satoshi was just slightly closer to being correct. Close enough to pique the Hal Finney's (creator of RPOW) interest and the rest is history. Some other notes that I’ll be working on incorporating into a final draft of this: Based on email provided by Wei Dai to gwern, Satoshi was known to contact Adam Back and Wei Dai before the posting on p2pfoundation or on the Cryptography mailing list. It’s interesting the lack of knowledge that Satoshi displayed regarding prior art: it seems he didn’t know about b-money, RPOW, or bitgold at the time he was directed by Adam towards the b-money concept. It makes me wonder if he would have fallen into a mental trap had he known about those concepts.
This is the website of Gwern Branwen.I write about psychology, statistics, and technology; I am best known for work on the darknet markets & Bitcoin, blinded self-experiments & Quantified Self analyses, dual n-back & spaced repetition, and modafinil.. For information about my site’s philosophy, method, traffic statistics, and implementation, see the About page; for information about myself Bitcoin’s price is $9,162.90 BTC/USD exchange rate today. The real-time BTC market cap of $168.94 Billion currently ranks #1 with a chart dominance at 62.37%, daily trading volume of $2.91 Billion and live coin value change of BTC 0.29 in the last 24 hours.. Bitcoin Price: Live BTC/USD Charts, History Analysis Updates and Real-Time Coin Market Value Data One of the first in-depth articles on Bitcoin, and particularly one of the first to really delve into Satoshi Nakamoto, was “The Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor” by Joshua Davis (10 October 2011), published in The New Yorker pg 62-70 (republished in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2012, ed. Ariely & Folger). This transcript has been prepared from a PDF on Bitcoin may be a better long term store of value than a state currency, e.g. the US dollar. It is governed by an algorithm as opposed to a committee. Algorithm changes are difficult and slow, and there is currently a cap on the total number of Bitcoins that will ever be created. Gwern was weird before bitcoin.. Awesome.. But weird. I love reading his stuff and it comes out at such a voracious rate I can't keep up Gwern is an impressive individual that appears to put a tremendous effort into thorough investigation of a shockingly broad range of very useful topics.
Bitcoins Value Proposition by Tone Vays 👉 Subscribe so you don't miss the next one: http://bit.ly/2QKVDdV ️ Watching on replay? Watch my latest video here: ... 🔵 $211,000 Bitcoin price - Jan 2021 - Duration: 17:06. Colin Talks Crypto 20,777 views. 17:06. Bitcoin Showing BIG Trouble at 6K In Big Picture - Duration: 26:58. If you had invested $200 in Bitcoin in 2009 what would it be worth compared to investing $200 in Amazon, Facebook or Google. If you wanted to buy an Alabama peach with your Bitcoin how would you ... The American Bitcoin Academy seeks to bring Education, Trust and Prosperity to the Bitcoin world. Visit www.americanbitcoinacademy.com and see way Bitcoin is... Bitcoin has performed extremely well since March’s lows, rallying over 150% from the $3,700 capitulation bottom. Even after a strong $1,200 retracement from the $10,500 highs, BTC is still one ...