• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
You mean like the guy who paid 10,000 BTC for a pizza in 2009?

It's not a matter of faith but what is profitable. Bitcoin is not especially suitable for transactions because it is highly deflationary, there are fees associated with every transaction and it can't process transactions fast enough to be a currency.

The best (profitable) uses of bitcoin are as an instrument of speculation and for transferring large sums across the globe within minutes without interference from any authority.
Click to expand...
The latter is the purest argument.
Of course there are large numbers of clones that dilute the value of bitcoin.
 
BobTheCoward said:
My issue is when I see Bitcoin supporters talk about holding Bitcoin.

Shouldnt they be constantly selling Bitcoin for goods and services if they believe in it?
Click to expand...
No, you hold Bitcoin for when the value suddenly rises exponentially and you can exchange it for more cash than you spent on it. You hold Etherium.

I bought some Bitcoin a few weeks ago - not a lot - and I kept some and exchanged most of it for Etherium. Since then, the value of both has remained remarkably stable. I got in right before it stabilised, so I didn't lose much of my initial stake.
 
Again this center cannot hold. A currency can't work as an investment if nobody ever uses it as a currency because it's too valuable of an investment and an investment can't work as a currency for the same reasons.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I don't understand your point. Of course if it's not limited it will crash at some point, given that 'not time limited' includes millennia.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My point was Samson's prediction had no information value. It wasn't a statement you can agree or disagree with. You're supposed to enjoy it for its dramatic effect I guess.
 
May be a new track here but more of a technical question. I understand Bitcoin is limited to a total quantity of 21 million "coins".

This is just to settle my curiosity on a theoretical question. For coin #21,000,000... even with multiple machines mining for that last coin, all reasonable odds are that only one machine will find it. But just as a hypothetical, suppose two machines, not connected to the Internet at the time, independently found the last coin. When is it settled which one is the "real" one, and how?
 
Dr.Sid said:
Exactly. My point was Samson's prediction had no information value. It wasn't a statement you can agree or disagree with. You're supposed to enjoy it for its dramatic effect I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah well I assumed he wasn't talking about the 41th millennium when humanity has to deal with Slaanesh. I think it rather obvious that he's talking in the short term.
 
gnome said:
May be a new track here but more of a technical question. I understand Bitcoin is limited to a total quantity of 21 million "coins".

This is just to settle my curiosity on a theoretical question. For coin #21,000,000... even with multiple machines mining for that last coin, all reasonable odds are that only one machine will find it. But just as a hypothetical, suppose two machines, not connected to the Internet at the time, independently found the last coin. When is it settled which one is the "real" one, and how?
Click to expand...

To oversimplify the math a bit there is a limit on the total number of possible Bitcoins, but it's exponential, each new Bitcoin make is harder to make, when we get to closer and closer to that 21 million mark Bitcoins will get harder and harder to make to the point of practical impossibility.

So the odds of a "Two Last Bitcoins" Ship of Theseus problem are astronomically small, to the point that "impossible" is fair and accurate for any real world discussion.
 
JoeMorgue said:
To oversimplify the math a bit there is a limit on the total number of possible Bitcoins, but it's exponential, each new Bitcoin make is harder to make, when we get to closer and closer to that 21 million mark Bitcoins will get harder and harder to make to the point of practical impossibility.

So the odds of a "Two Last Bitcoins" Ship of Theseus problem are astronomically small, to the point that "impossible" is fair and accurate for any real world discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about it happening. I'm just wondering what the technical result would be if it did anyway, even if the possibility is purely theoretical.
 
gnome said:
I'm not worried about it happening. I'm just wondering what the technical result would be if it did anyway, even if the possibility is purely theoretical.
Click to expand...

It looks like (and be aware we're getting way techie and above my head here so I am most strenuously not speaking as an expert or authority) that in that case "Longest Blockchain Wins" is the standard rule of thumb.

https://criptomo.com/two-simultaneous-blocks/
 
That is fascinating--thank you.

In examining that scenario, I notice another that may be more likely. It appears right now the insurance against orphaned bitcoins is waiting for a certain number of confirmations to ensure the bitcoin has "stuck".

Especially if verifying becomes increasingly difficult, and the value of a bitcoin increases, will we reach a point where an "orphaned" bitcoin causes a massive problem somewhere down the road? I realize the likelihood of an orphan decreases over time, but once bitcoins become sufficiently valuable it only takes one incident for a huge problem.
 
gnome said:
May be a new track here but more of a technical question. I understand Bitcoin is limited to a total quantity of 21 million "coins".

This is just to settle my curiosity on a theoretical question. For coin #21,000,000... even with multiple machines mining for that last coin, all reasonable odds are that only one machine will find it. But just as a hypothetical, suppose two machines, not connected to the Internet at the time, independently found the last coin. When is it settled which one is the "real" one, and how?
Click to expand...
Two or more miners mining a block at the same time is not an uncommon occurrence. This creates a "fork". The rule is that the longest fork wins and the other block gets discarded. So it will be if two miners mine the last satoshi in 2140. Only one of them will get their block permanently on the blockchain and claim that reward.

Of course, by that time, block rewards will come from transaction fees rather than new satoshis.
 
psionl0 said:
Two or more miners mining a block at the same time is not an uncommon occurrence. This creates a "fork". The rule is that the longest fork wins and the other block gets discarded. So it will be if two miners mine the last satoshi in 2140. Only one of them will get their block permanently on the blockchain and claim that reward.

Of course, by that time, block rewards will come from transaction fees rather than new satoshis.
Click to expand...

The source of trouble I'm seeing is that it appears the soon-to-be-orphan bitcoin can be transacted with until the conflict occurs and can be resolved. I can imagine a lot of trouble caused by such a hot potato if one fork can remain undetected for a significant amount of time.
 
gnome said:
The source of trouble I'm seeing is that it appears the soon-to-be-orphan bitcoin can be transacted with until the conflict occurs and can be resolved. I can imagine a lot of trouble caused by such a hot potato if one fork can remain undetected for a significant amount of time.
Click to expand...
When your transaction makes it to the blockchain it is "confirmed". Each time another block is added to the chain after that your transaction gets another "confirmation".

Because of the way the SHA256 algorithm works, the more confirmations your transaction receives, the less likely it is that another fork will remove your transaction. After 6 confirmations it is virtually impossible that your transaction is deleted. So many BTC recipients insist on seeing 6 confirmations before accepting your transaction.
 
psionl0 said:
When your transaction makes it to the blockchain it is "confirmed". Each time another block is added to the chain after that your transaction gets another "confirmation".

Because of the way the SHA256 algorithm works, the more confirmations your transaction receives, the less likely it is that another fork will remove your transaction. After 6 confirmations it is virtually impossible that your transaction is deleted. So many BTC recipients insist on seeing 6 confirmations before accepting your transaction.
Click to expand...
Was this all in the original code?
 
psionl0 said:
When your transaction makes it to the blockchain it is "confirmed". Each time another block is added to the chain after that your transaction gets another "confirmation".

Because of the way the SHA256 algorithm works, the more confirmations your transaction receives, the less likely it is that another fork will remove your transaction. After 6 confirmations it is virtually impossible that your transaction is deleted. So many BTC recipients insist on seeing 6 confirmations before accepting your transaction.
Click to expand...

That seems a practical standard. Does the time/resources it takes to get those 6 confirmations increase over time?

Also "virtually impossible" is nice--but a magnitude may be helpful. Are there some numbers assigned to those probabilities? I imagine there are, I'm just curious about them--mainly because the stakes escalate over time. There will come a point where someone producing a bitcoin is a major event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom