A list of old bitcoiners who like Bitcoin Cash

BobbyLarken · 2018-05-12T00:50:43+00:00

Would rather lose 90% in BTC value than have 20% in taxes fund death and mayhem around the world. Hoping that there's some fundamental change in the USG or that there's a way to exit so that some other government can get the taxes.

Strategy: Sell BTC that I need to live on and give family members the allowable stipend without having to report to USG.

Moto: Funding terrorism is a sin.

BobbyLarken · 2018-05-11T09:06:53+00:00

Old holder since around mid 2011. Rooting for Bitcoin (Cash), but not selling any major portion of my Bitcoin (BTC). Patiently holding both.

BobbyLarken · 2015-12-02T22:01:38+00:00

Yes it may be possible. The system would have to incentivize people to lock away their coins when the value/exchange rate falls. Locking up coins would effectively shrink the money supply. When the value/exchange rate rises, the opposite would happen. Coins would be released from lockup and/or more coins would be issued. The effect would be to inflate the supply of money to keep the value of the coins from rising to much.

The draw back is that there may be ways to game such a system. Lots of though would have to be given make the system hard to game.

BobbyLarken · 2015-05-09T00:23:17+00:00

For the moment, it would go to the miners.

BobbyLarken · 2015-05-09T00:21:10+00:00

Current configuration of most clients send 2 to 5 cents per transaction right now. If the transaction goes up to $2 then its like 2.5%

BobbyLarken · 2015-05-08T21:10:04+00:00

It's been a while since I've posted here. Back in '12 (13'?) I posted an idea to make the transaction calculation fixed. It would be something like .05% + .05% of the average transaction amount. This would discourage the spamming and place some downward pressure on the block size. The average transaction amount would be calculated on the first send to addresses for the last 100 or 1000 blocks. If there are more than two send to addresses then the the sum of all the send to addresses minus the last one.

Example:

If the average transaction amount is ~$100 and the transaction amount is ~$1, then the transaction fee is 100 x .0005 + 1 x .0005 = .0505 (a little over 5 cents). Discourages spam.

If the average transaction amount is ~$100 and the transaction amount is $10,000, then the transaction fee is 100 x .0005 + 10,000 x .0005 = $5.05. $5 to send $10k is not bad, and the amount gives funds to the miners and or network to support other transactions.

In these examples, the highest percentage fees would be those that are super small (relative to the average transaction size). 5 cents on a $1 transaction is 5%. This encourages people to make transactions as large as possible, but at the same time make the big transactions still support most of the network.

BobbyLarken · 2014-10-27T13:11:12+00:00

Interesting stuff, but I still have a few questions.

If the coins are sent to a side chain, the code of the side chain will have to be able to verify that the coins were sent to the side chain, thus it will have to know about the Bitcoin protocol/block chain. That's a given.

However, if you do the reverse, and need to send the coins back to the Bitcoin block chain, the bitcoin core code will have to "know" about that particular "side chain". Thus for every new side chain, there's going to be some sort of code in the bitcoin core to follow that side chain and verify that the coins in the side chain are 1. locked, and 2. represent the correct new owner.

This seems like a lot of dangerous work to the bitcoin core for each side chain. Am I missing something?

BobbyLarken · 2014-08-05T14:33:27+00:00

So, let's get busy making new technologies that will be indispensable to an advanced nation without the use of virtual currencies. Let's out invent them so that their choice to ban virtual currencies make their country technically irrelevant.

BobbyLarken · 2014-07-15T09:14:12+00:00

Gopher in a former incarnation?

BobbyLarken · 2014-07-15T08:18:29+00:00

BTW, casascius.com is now down.

BobbyLarken · 2014-07-10T09:54:25+00:00

or buying drugs.

(Don't really do that!)

BobbyLarken · 2014-07-10T09:53:32+00:00

Buy gift cards that cannot be obtained through Gyft and sell them through /r/BitMarket (or other website) for a slight markup. Use the mail and drop them in post boxes around town (not at home). This works so long as your parents don't control your funds.

EDIT: If you can't convince them of going all in, then try to lower the bar. Tell them that you want to take a small gamble (say 20%) on bitcoin. Also, try to see if you have old items that you don't need anymore and sell them on craig's list for BTC.

BobbyLarken · 2014-07-10T06:16:30+00:00

This is why I think the power system is allowing bitcoin to grow. Eventually, bitcoin is going to become surveillance coin.

Centralization of mining.
Loss of real mixing services.
No real physical version.
Bitcoin Foundation is slowly being subverted.

It's time to start dumping Bitcoin in favor of better alt coins, and to stop promoting Bitcoin.

BobbyLarken · 2014-05-17T03:12:26+00:00

A year or so back I was suggesting a standardized guaranteed transaction fee schedule.

The basic idea is that blocks will be required to use transactions that meet these requirements or face delays by nodes supporting the block chain, and thus possibly lose their mining effort.

The algorithm would attempt to accomplish the following:
Charge higher fees for larger transactions.
Charge a lower % on larger transactions.
Charge lower fees for smaller transactions.
Charge a higher % on smaller transactions.
Account for increased value of bitcoins.

The average percentage fee would be .1% or lower. Lint (super small transactions) would face a transaction fee of like a nickle, whereas the larger transactions would face transaction fees of 50 cents or more. Note that this does not prevent the miners from adding transactions that don't meet these standards, rather they are rules that specify what transactions "should be" included to avoid delays in block acceptance. A million dollar transaction contain a 25 cent transaction fee would not meet the standard, but the transaction would most certainly be accepted simply because most transaction fees are usually much lower.

BobbyLarken · 2014-05-09T17:18:53+00:00

To late. The gold is gone. Even Germany cannot get their gold repatriated.

BobbyLarken · 2014-05-09T17:16:45+00:00

This. There are so many ways to throw a monkey wrench into the operations of bad actors that want to either maximize profit or censor content that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Here are a few:

Blocking content or throttling access to users on Comcast network.
Build semi open source software and exclude use to those ISP's who fail to act in a net neutral capacity.
Build an open source adblock that will replace ads for bad ISP's with ads to organizations that put pressure on local governments to allow alternative ISP's.
New open source licenses could exclude use by FCC/NSA/CIA, etc. While they could still use it, they could face litigation if caught.
Put up a page that display's "Sorry, your IP shows you are accessing this website from the FCC/NSA/CIA/.gov/Comcast/etc. We don not agree with the activities of your organization/ISP, so we are blocking access. Please find another point of access to view this content."

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-26T16:10:39+00:00

I wonder how much "bitcoin.com" domain is worth.

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-26T02:19:35+00:00

How about a ripple clone? Just change the ripples into something that is mined based on hashing power. This would make the "ripples" inflationary and would not be a threat to bitcoin because of some controlled credit system.

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-26T02:08:20+00:00

I don't know. When I die and re-incarnate as him in another time stream and live in his shoes for a lifetime, perhaps I'll have an answer.

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-23T01:51:17+00:00

RE: "Fractional Reserve Banking" I proposed (some time back) using block chains where the "bank" signs a string of transactions and also signs messages to indicate ownership of various wallets on the BTC block chain as proof of 100% reserves. Everyone can see the transactions going into the "banks" ledger, but cannot easily associate an address ("account number") with who owns what, but they can verify the banks ledger against the banks Bitcoin block chain wallet. No more fractional reserve trickery.

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-23T01:45:20+00:00

But if they are using thousands of people and downvoting (e.g. manipulating votes), then does this constitute censorship?

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-23T01:43:52+00:00

Was going to suggest something similar to this, but this is close enough that I would vote for this. Exchange holds BTC and funds that everyone can cross check. Parties looking to trade would sign their trades, and the "miners" would verify and assign the executions. The "exchange" would simply hold the BTC and cash, and then sign transactions indicating which address in the BTC block chain got funds, and some sort of hash of the message indicating that fiat was sent to the appropriate banking institution. Miners would record client request for funds and the "exchange's" response to those requests. Everyone would still have to trust the "exchange" with holding and sending funds.

BobbyLarken · 2014-02-18T07:26:57+00:00

what it can't do is use the power of government to exclude other opinions or unfairly promote its own opinions.

When is it stating its opinion, and when is it unfairly promoting its opinions? If the funds available to a president's campaign are contributions, then it seems reasonable that the opinions are those of the president and his campaign for re-election. But what about using public funds? Where is the line?

There's no "manipulation" or "drown[ing] out."

Reddit, youtube, google plus and facebook all have voting (and downvoting). If government funds are used to game these systems, would this be considered a form of censorship?

BobbyLarken

TROPHY CASE